1951-03-01

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse)
presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Hallon) presented] the first and second reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
First, second and third reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. Winkler.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 80 (from the Senate) to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. PRIVATE BILLS



FIRST READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Jean Zelda Schacter Shmukler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Beatrice Sullivan Lees.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Kathleen Louise Jones Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Myrtle Dorcas Perry Rogers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Nell Gohenberg Lipson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Rosyln Beverly Gold Browman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Rolande Dumas Fritsch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Edith Frances Storrier Ritchie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Dorothy Isabel Pitcher Flipping.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Sylvia Miller Ginsberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Fernand Senecal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Vincent Tutino. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Paulette Joly Foley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Jean Eurwen Jones Shaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Edna Donnelly Boyle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Norma Phoebe Mary Buchanan Baker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Grace Gloria Ramsey Racine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Emily Ivy Rose Cook.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Homer Leavitt Ayer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Elma Lillian Le Drew Wells.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Bertha Ellen Bradley Grant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Brenda Mary Powell-Tuck Buhr.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McGregor:: 1.	Are tenders being called for the construction of a pier or wharf at Sept lies, Quebec?
2.	Has any engineering firm been retained to prepare plans for the same?
3.	If so, what firms?
4.	What is the basis upon which fees will be paid to this firm?
5.	Will this firm also be retained to supervise construction?
6.	If so, on what basis?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	A public call for tenders is being prepared.
2.	Yes.
3.	C. D. Howe Company Limited, Port Arthur, Ont.
4.	Two and one-half per cent of the cost of the work.
5.	Yes.
6.	Four per cent of the cost of the work.

Questions


DUTIES AND TAXES ON FISHING GEAR
Mr. McLure:: 1. Is all fishing gear used by an individual fisherman tax and duty free?
2 Is the heavier rope over 21 thread (one-half inch diameter) taxable and dutiable?
3. Is the steel cable, sometimes used instead of rope, for hoisting nets and traps, taxable and dutiable?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Without knowing specifically what is meant by fishing gear, it is difficult to answer this question. It is thought that in the main the question could be answered in the affirmative, but there may be items that are subject to both duty and/or sales tax.
2.	For customs duty purposes, the answer is yes. Provision is made for the exemption from sales tax of "threads, twines, marlines, fishing lines, rope and cordage of cotton, hemp, manila or other vegetable fibre, not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference, to be used for fishing purposes or for the construction or repair of fishing nets".
3.	For customs duty purposes, the answer is yes. Provision is made for exemption from sales tax of "materials for use only in the construction, equipment and repair of ships" and if this steel cable was equipment of a ship, it would be exempt.


BRITISH AND CANADIAN SELLING PRICE OF BRITISH CARS
Mr. Dickey:: 1.	What is the domestic selling price quoted in pounds and dollars, in the United Kingdom, (a) excluding purchase tax, if any, and (b) including purchase tax, of the following (i) Morris Minor; (ii) Austin 10; (iii) Hillman Minx?
2.	What is the selling price, quoted in pounds and dollars, in Canada, including ocean freight, customs duties and excise taxes, but excluding Canadian freight charges, of the following automobiles (i) Morris Minor; (ii) Austin 10; (iii) Hillman Minx?


Mr. McCann:: Information as to exporters' home market values and selling prices to purchasers in Canada is furnished to the department in strict confidence for administrative purposes. It is contrary to the practice of this department to furnish information which would disclose the private transactions of importers or exporters at customs.



SUNNYBROOK HOSPITAL-MILK SUPPLY


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	How many appointments have been made in the Department of Fisheries, province of Newfoundland, since April 1, 1950?
2.	What are their names and respective salaries?


SPECIAL FORCE VETERANS
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to make certain rights, privileges and benefits applicable to persons serving in that part of the armed forces of Canada designated as the special force.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it true that as a reward for completion of food contracts the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is going to the Senate? In this case I did not like to say "the other place". Second, is the rumour true that Dr. Hannam is likely to succeed him?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am required to answer these rumours. Certainly they have no foundation in fact so far as I am concerned.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: I should like to address a question to the

Minister of Finance. Will the budget be brought down before Easter, or has a date been fixed, and if so, what is it?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I am not in a position yet to give the house an answer to either of the questions. We are working hard on it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: As one
who lives a long distance from Ottawa, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say if there is going to be an Easter recess, and if so, how long will it be?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The question whether there will be an Easter recess-and by that I understand the hon. member to mean more than the adjournment provided for by the standing orders-and how long its duration may be, will be for the house to determine; but my colleagues and I decided this morning that I would put a notice on the order paper as soon as possible, and our recommendation will be that when the house adjourns on Wednesday, the 21st of March, it stand adjourned until three o'clock on Monday, the 2nd of April.



QUESTION AS TO TABLING OF MAIN ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Can the
Minister of Finance tell us when he expects to be able to table the main estimates for the coming fiscal year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say with absolute certainty. They are in the hands of the printer now. It is entirely a printing job. I confidently expect it will be some time next week, but I am not yet in a position to say definitely what day.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he was correctly reported in this morning's papers as having made a statement to the effect that troops are being sent to Europe. If so, I think it would have been better if the announcement had been made in the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I was quite as much surprised as the hon. member by the statement over the radio and the announcement
Inquiries of the Ministry in some of the newspapers that I said anything that could be looked upon as news in that connection. In the course of my address last night I referred to the fact that, to implement the announced policy of the government and our obligations under the North Atlantic treaty, it would be necessary for us to propose to parliament that both land forces and a detachment of the R.C.A.F. be sent to Europe to be placed under the command of General Eisenhower. I can assure the hon. member that as soon as the details as to those forces have been arranged with our associates, and there has been a determination of the time at which and the place to which they will be sent, an announcement will be made to the house in conformity with the undertaking I gave the house last June.



CIVIL SERVANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he can tell us yet at what date the current salary increases will be given to federal civil servants?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I cannot. Preparation of the final supplementary estimates is now under way; I hope that they will be available to the house within the next week or ten days. They should be passed-and I expect they will be passed-before the house adjourns on the 21st of March. After the vote has been passed, the civil servants will receive their increases from December 1, and other payments that have to be authorized under the supplementary estimates will be made.


Major James William Coldwell: I presume any person who has retired since December 1 and before payment of the money will be entitled to the increase?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; those who were on strength on December 1 will be entitled to the increases which were announced in the house as being effective from that date.



COARSE GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he will soon be able to make a statement with respect to the commencement of the interim payment on coarse grains from the 1950 crop.

Farm Improvement Loans Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade of doubtful security, however, under section
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the wheat board that the returns from the country on coarse grains are now practically complete, and I think payments will begin today. Coarse grains payments will be followed immediately by payments on wheat.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 78, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944-Mr. Abbott-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Limitation of amount of liability to bank.
Mr. Sinclair:: On Tuesday, when the house was good enough to give the bill second reading a little ahead of schedule, we had quite a wide discussion on the details of this legislation, but there were one or two questions which I asked to have stand over with the understanding that I would answer them now.
The first point was raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for The Battlefords, and I believe the hon. member for Prince Albert, on the matter of banks requiring the deposit of title as security against some loans. In the regulations under this act the conditions are defined under which these loans may be made, and it is provided that the banks may, in certain classes of loans, require title, as the hon. members pointed out. In addition, section 6 of the regulations provides that in cases where in the opinion of a responsible officer of the bank further security is required or deemed advisable, the bank may take such further security as a responsible officer of the bank considers appropriate in the circumstances.
I have made inquiry as to how often that provision was taken advantage of, and I find that it is done mainly in the frontier areas; in the Peace river district of British Columbia and Alberta, in northern Saskatchewan, in the interlake area of Manitoba, where the actual loan is generally made either for the clearing of the land or for the building of small barns. In those cases there is little chattel security to be obtained. In such circumstances the banks have asked in some cases for deposit of title. In the case of the hon. member for Assinaboia, most of the loans in his riding, according to my records, seem to be for implements, and it is not a common practice there. In the case 
6 the bank may ask for deposit of such title. The bank is not compelled to make the loan; the farmer is not compelled to accept the loan.
The next question was by the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Greenwood, followed up by the hon. members for Melfort and Souris, suggesting that, while the act has worked very well up to now, perhaps the top limit on loans of $3,000 for ten years could be raised. At the time I pointed out that my figures did not seem to indicate very much pressure on that ceiling, because the average amount of the 170,000 loans made is $980. But I was asked whether I could obtain a table showing the number of $3,000 loans, and the hon. member for Prince Albert also asked whether I could have a sample prepared for one district. That was a little more difficult, but since he asked it I had the sample prepared for the area around Prince Albert. Once again, I do not know whether there is much interest in the details of the table; it is not very long. In our office the loans are classified by provinces, by banks and then in the five classifications for which loans can be made. These $3,000 loans are listed in that way, by banks, by provinces, and by class. Since the inception of the act in 1945 the number of loans of $3,000 total 2,214, or roughly 1 [DOT] 3 per cent of all the loans made. That would not indicate very much pressure on the present ceiling.
It is a little difficult because of the way in which the records are kept, to ascertain what is the medial loan, though the average is around $980; but examination of the amounts for one province by one bank shows that the great bulk of the loans range between $300 and $1,500. Of the loans, eighty-five per cent are for the purchase of agricultural implements; most of the small loans seem to be for the purchase of low-priced items such as binders.
So far as this table is concerned, if there is interest in it I can ask to have it appear in Hansard. If there is not that interest, hon. members who are concerned may see it for themselves.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I ask that it be included in Hansard.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Is the break-down by provinces shown?


James Sinclair: Yes; by provinces, by banks and by classifications. Only four of the five classifications are shown; in one classification there are no loans of that size. The table is as follows:

Farm Improvement Loans
All Loans Since Inception in the Amount of $3,000
	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Que.	NB.	N.S.	P.E.I.	
Purchase of agricultural implements										
Bank-Nova Scotia	1	51	86	11	i	2	National 	12	5	Dominion 	9	11	22	3	Toronto 	2	30	92	22	16	Imperial 	31	49	6	1	Commerce 	23	101	177	65	7	2	Royal 	5	162	163	179	4	1	i	i	Montreal 	4	154	97	42	6	47	538	675	347	38	8	i	3	1,657Purchase of livestock	Bank-Nova Scotia 	1	4	3	5	l	1	National 	. .	4	..	Dominion 	. .	. .	Toronto 	1	3	1	Imperial 	i	1	Commerce 	2	4	1	10	1	Royal 	3	7	1	1	6	1	Montreal	3	3	2	4	10	19	9	2	27	5	i	1	1	75Construction	Bank-Nova Scotia 	1	13	2	10	i	National 	4	1	11	Dominion 	i	3	2	14	Toronto 	7	9	1	16	Imperial 	9	5	23	Commerce 	17	16	13	1	41	1	4	Royal 	4	27	5	14	51	1	1	Montreal 	13	44	6	3	71	6	35	117	41	27	227	18	6	1	472Brushing and breaking	Bank-Commerce 	2	1	Royal 	2	i	Dominion 	1	Imperial 	2	Toronto 	1	5	2	3	10Grand Totals 	92	679	725	378	295	31	8	1	5	2,214
It might also be interesting to table the break-down for one district to show the classification of loans in that district. This is for the district around Prince Albert. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: That table is as follows:
Summary of $3,000 Loans in Prince Albert, Sask., and surrounding area

Total loans Loans
Bank of Montreal
Duck Lake, Sask	
188	2Prince Albert, Sask	
277	3
Bank of Nova Scotia
Kinistino, Sask	
263	5Prince Albert, Sask	
513	6Shellbrook, Sask	
266	5
Total loans Loans
Canadian Bank of Commerce
Birch Hills, Sask	.. 592 .. 204	2 1Imperial Bank of Canada Prince Albert, Sask	.. 391	13Royal Bank of Canada	... 91	3Prince Albert, Sask	,.. 310	123,095	59
Loans made for $3,000 in this area amounted to 1-9 per cent of total.
The one other question outstanding was that of the hon. member for Glengarry, who asked whether it was possible for a farmer who had purchased implements under a commercial finance scheme at fairly high rates
788	HOUSE OF
Farm. Improvement Loans to refinance through the facilities of this legislation. I am informed that this is not possible, that the intent of this act was to help in the financing of the purchase of equipment, alterations, land clearing and so on, not to help in refinancing existing obligations. These were the questions outstanding at that time, and I thought I should clear them up first.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I was not here the other evening and I should like to ask a couple of questions. Last week in reply to a question I placed on the order paper, I was informed that no branch under the farm loan board had been set up in Newfoundland, as the number of requests did not warrant it, and that requests from Newfoundland were now being handled by Ottawa direct. Could the parliamentary assistant tell me how many requests have been received, and what are the mechanics by which these requests are handled now?


James Sinclair: I can answer the hon. member in this way. We are not now discussing the farm loan board act; this is the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It is true that the farm loan board has no facilities in Newfoundland; but the actual handling of transactions under the Farm Improvement Loans Act is done by the branch managers of the chartered banks in Newfoundland. So far there have been only two loans in Newfoundland, but that is a matter for the branch managers. Just as a matter of interest, I can find out what progress has been made so far as the farm loan board is concerned and communicate it to the hon. member.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I would appreciate that.


Mr. Herridge:: As I said when the resolution was under discussion I think this act has been of great service to many farmers in this country, but even around my own constituency I occasionally run into farmers who are not aware that they may obtain loans under it.
I would like the parliamentary assistant to explain to the house what the department does to inform farmers of the existence of this legislation.


James Sinclair: The hon. member for Greenwood asked a similar question Tuesday evening, and at that time I told him the principal source of information had been the branch managers of banks themselves, when farmers came to inquire as to loans. I suppose it is quite true that many farmers do not go near banks because they do not think they could get loans. I also said that we had put out one or two small pamphlets. Since then I have checked, and find that all told we have put out four small pamphlets in the last six years. In the expenditures for the present year, however, we have an item-and I say 

this with perhaps some reluctance to the hon. member for Greenwood-of $9,000 for publicity for pamphlets setting out very briefly the provisions of this legislation and how farmers may secure help. I think the most striking fact we could quote in that pamphlet would be the astounding increase in service from 4,300 loans in the first year of operation to 59,000 loans last year; but I think this is a field where it would be a real help to the farmer if a little more publicity were given by the board in pamphlet form, rather than through the banks. The farm associations have been most helpful in spreading word to their members, but perhaps in this case even the hon. member for Greenwood may agree that there is justification for a small expenditure for a pamphlet to tell the farmers what they can expect under this act.


Mr.   Baler@: Is it absolutely a necessity that the applicant have title to his land before he can qualify for a loan under this act?


James Sinclair: I must apologize to the hon. member. I shall need the aid of my assistant on these detailed questions, and he has not yet appeared. Would the member just hold that question for a moment?


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Could the act be
extended a little to service the country north of the Peace river? This loan board does good work in the more settled areas, but in new areas where the buildings and fences are not up to the same standards as they are in Ontario, for instance, and the farms are removed from large centres of population, the inspectors take a very stern view of the situation and often refuse loans. I know of one case where a loan was refused to a man who had cleared five hundred acres of land and who needed a loan in order to purchase seed and tools. He had exhausted his cash in clearing this large area. The farm loan board could not see its way clear to lending him any money. The excuse given was that the man was a bachelor, and he was over sixty years of age. We might provide him with a wife and set him up in a good home, then probably he would qualify for the loan. The fact was that the man had a good reputation for paying his debts; he was a practical farmer and therefore a good risk.
I believe the act should be extended, so that these new areas could be given just as careful attention as the more settled areas.


James Sinclair: In reply to the member for Cariboo, I should like to point out that we are not considering the Canadian Farm Loan Act but the Canadian farm improvement act. Actually, the record of this act in outlying areas is even better than it is in the established areas, as is shown by the table I filed last Tuesday night. It is in the Peace river

district, northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, that the loans for the clearing of land and improvement of buildings have been most successful.
As I pointed out to the member for Assiniboia, in those areas they often ask for security by way of the deposit of title. The Farm Improvement Loans Act has no connection with the Canadian farm loan board, which is an organized body lending funds on land. The Farm Improvement Loans Act is simply a means by which the Canadian government guarantees the credit extended by the banks for farm improvements, and the bank managers are the ones who pass on the farm loans.


George Matheson Murray: I am not one to
advocate advertising the lending of money to farmers. I think that the farm loan board does good work, and so does this farm improvement act. I still believe, however, that even the trust companies refuse to lend money on lands on the north side of the Peace river in British Columbia that are profitably cultivated. These properties are regarded as poor risks simply because they are fifty miles away from a railway. Farms can be operated successfully in spite of the fact they are some distance away from large centres of population. I believe that both the banks and trust companies could extend their lending operations in this part of the country, in which there are worthy people who are good risks and who should be given a little financial assistance.


Mr. Argue:: I wish to thank the parliamentary assistant for the answer he gave to my question. I do not object to the practice of the banks in frontier areas asking for the deposit of titles for a loan for the improvement of land or buildings, because there is not much else in the way of security that could be given to the banks. I do say, however, that I believe the practice, which is quite prevalent in my locality, of asking for the deposit of title on a farm implement loan, should be frowned upon. The banks have adequate security. Up to about ten per cent of the aggregate loans are guaranteed by parliament. To show that that guarantee is worth a good deal, one needs only to mention that out of $170 million of loans, claims have been made by the banks for only $19,000.
In addition to the ten per cent guarantee on farm implement loans the bank takes a lien on the farm implement. In my opinion that should be adequate security. I believe one of the reasons why the banks in certain areas are asking for a deposit of title is the fact that they are faced with competition from credit unions. The bankers take the attitude that if they can get the farmer to
Farm Improvement Loans deposit his title he will not be eligible for a loan from the credit union. In some areas I know there is a good deal of competition between active credit unions and the local banks. If the bank can get the farmer's title to the farm on an improvement loan, then of course it is much more difficult for the farmer to get a loan from the credit union. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would explore the possibility of having credit unions brought under this act, so that they would be eligible for the same ten per cent guarantee. If that were done, then I imagine that the practice of the banks in certain areas of requesting a deposit of title on farm implement loans would be discontinued.


Mr.   Baler@: My question was, is it necessary for the applicant to have a clear title to his property before he can qualify under this act?


James Sinclair: The answer is no.


Robert Fair: I believe that the farmers all
across Canada are grateful for the passage of this legislation, and will appreciate having it extended for a further term. I am supporting it, but I -want to go a little further. The latest figures we have from the dominion bureau of statistics show that approximately twenty-five per cent of the people of Canada are living on the land. At the present time they are receiving somewhere between ten and fifteen per cent of the national income. Something of greater importance than the passage of a farm loan act would be the bringing about of parity prices for the Canadian farmer. If that were done, the necessity for a Farm Improvement Loans Act would be eliminated.


William Joseph Browne: Will the
parliamentary assistant say whether there is a quota for each province?


James Sinclair: There is no quota for each
province, nor is there a quota for any one of the banks. It is just a matter of the business risks available in the various provinces for loans by the various banking institutions.
So far as the point raised by the member for Assiniboia is concerned, I rather think he defeated his own purpose when he mentioned the strong competition between the credit unions and the banks for this type of business. If there is any competition, the banks would not put any block in the way of getting the business. His second point was whether or not credit unions could be included in this act. This problem we discussed three years ago when the act was first reviewed. Two points were raised immediately. First, this is a federal act, and the ten chartered banks of Canada are controlled
790	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans by federal legislation and inspected by federal inspectors. Credit unions are under provincial authority and control.
A third point, perhaps not so important in these times as at other times, is the matter of solvency. The institution lending the money must be solvent, just as the farmer who is borrowing the money must be solvent. The ten chartered banks of Canada are certainly much more secure than the great variety of credit unions across this country. Some credit unions are in excellent financial shape. Others are in not too strong a position. It is for that reason, for simplicity of operation and the fact that under this federal act we have federal control of the banks, that the guaranteed loans have been restricted to the ten banks chartered under the federal government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Did the department ever call in the credit unions or their officials and try to work out some formula under which they might get the same consideration as the banks? Was anything done to try to bring the credit unions in?


James Sinclair: The answer, I am informed, is no.


George Matheson Murray: May I say that in our district the credit union is a valuable organization, and it does not compete with the banks. The banks welcome the credit union, and the credit union is helpful to the banks. In British Columbia it is under the department headed by Hon. Mr. Wismer, and it is doing excellent work all through the province, particularly in the northern areas.


Mr. Cardiff:: I am glad to know from the parliamentary assistant that money is being set aside to advertise this assistance to the farmers. I think the reason why many of them have not taken advantage of this assistance is that they did not know anything about it; therefore the money that is being set aside for advertising will be well spent. In my own district I am sure that many of the farmers have no knowledge of it at all. If it is left to the bankers to advertise it, I do not think they would do it. Perhaps they would rather lend money in some other way and get a little more interest on it. I am glad that money is being set aside for advertising.


Mr. Sluder:: If the objection to the banks' obtaining title for some of these loans is valid, the same thing would have to hold true with regard to credit unions, provided that they had the same prerogatives. My difficulty is not with regard to the bank's obtaining my title; it is with regard to the credit union, because the credit union has the title to my land and I do not know what to do about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: But they have no ten per cent guarantee. That is important.


Mr. Jones:: In the table submitted by the parliamentary assistant the other day I notice that the loans made to farmers in British Columbia were roughly eight per cent of those made to farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I was wondering what was the reason for that. I believe that the government's intent is sound and that they will bend over backwards to help the farmer, but to what extent are the banks co-operating? The question is this. Has the parliamentary assistant the figures indicating the amount and the number of loans applied for and the number rejected or not granted?


James Sinclair: This table I filed on Tuesday evening was one which I ' was quite sure would arouse great interest when it was actually printed, because the three prairie provinces are far ahead of the other provinces, despite the great size of the agricultural industry in Ontario and Quebec. There are reasons for that. In the three prairie provinces the farms are large in size; the farmers use expensive mechanical equipment; and there are also many new farms. The clearing of land, the improvement and the extension of buildings is an important factor with regard to the prairie farms. In Ontario and Quebec, on the other hand, the farms are for the most part much smaller; there is not the same need for the large mechanical equipment, such as the combine that is used in the west. More than that, the farms in the east are much older. They have had fifty years or a hundred years of careful husbandry over the farms, fences, houses and that sort of thing, which undoubtedly is one of the main reasons for the great difference in the number of loans in the prairie provinces as compared with those in the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec. As to British Columbia, the agriculture industry there is fairly well limited to two or three areas; and the area represented by my hon. friend from Yale did not qualify quite as easily as did the prairies until this amendment I mentioned the other night, which included the planting and purchase of fruit trees.
As to the number of applications which have been refused, we have no official record of them. The situation here is the same as that with regard to most business loans made by a bank. The record is of the loans made, not of the loans refused, because of the very nature of the application. The farmer or businessman goes in to see his bank manager

and talks over the problem. From that conversation he can soon see whether it will be possible for him to obtain a loan or not.
However, we have a much better way of estimating the number of rejections, and it is this. Of all people in Canada I believe the farmers are the ones who are the most vocal in complaining when they think they are suffering from an injustice, and the administration would certainly be the first to get letters from farmers complaining about the matter if this act was not working in the way it was intended to work and many applications were refused. Second to the farmers in the matter of complaint would be the businessmen in these communities who have been put on a cash basis, as has been said, by this act. In the third place, and perhaps most important right here, we would certainly have heard from members of parliament. I raised that point with the administration and I found that, for example, in the last year, only three members of parliament had brought cases of refusal of loans to the attention of the administration; the explanation in each of those cases was perfectly satisfactory to the members concerned. So I would think that there is not much in the way of refusal of loans where there is reasonable security, remembering that we have this ten per cent guarantee by the federal government.


Mr. Quelch:: Did I understand the parliamentary assistant to say that, as to loans that are made for the purchase of machinery, there would be no change in the regulations; there would be no increase in the down payment and no shortening of the term of repayment?


James Sinclair: That is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Limitation of amount of liability to a bank.
Mr. Charlton:: In the explanatory notes to clause 2 I find the following:
The period during which guaranteed farm improvement loans may be made expires on February 28,	1951. The proposed amendments
extend this period to February 28, 1954, and also increase the aggregate amount of farm improvement loans that may be guaranteed.
I checked back on the original bill which was passed in 1944. Section 5 of that bill reads as follows:
The minister shall not be liable under this act to make any payment to a bank in respect of loss sustained by it as a result of a farm improvement loan made after the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed farm improvement loans made. by all banks exceeds two hundred and fifty million dollars or made more than three years after the commencement of this act.
Farm Improvement Loans
I beg your pardon; that was the amendment as of 1948. The original act is just the same; it deals with the amount of $250 million. The explanatory note in this bill says the amendment is to increase the aggregate amount. But still this section in the amendment mentions $200 million. The parliamentary assistant to the minister stated the other night that this amount was to be increased. It appears to me as though there has been a decrease. Can the parliamentary assistant explain that?


James Sinclair: On the surface, it looks as if there had been a decrease. When the bill was first passed in 1944 the amount mentioned was $250 million. At that time it was not known whether the act would be accepted by the farmers, or whether it would work out well; it was a probationary period. At the end of three years it was found that it did not work too well. I remember that the then member for Wood Mountain, now the hon. member for Assiniboia, said that it did not work well because out of $250 million we had lent only $35 million in those three years. The next act, therefore, did not repeat the $250 million but did say, the balance of the $250 million first voted; in other words, loans made in the next three-year period would be for that balance of $215 million-I think it was $35 million for the first three years, and the loans were limited then for the whole six years to that first $250 million. Now the rate of lending has increased greatly. Last year it was around $63 million. Although there is some $30 million left over of the first $250 million total loans, we made a fresh start and said that for the next three years the total loans on which we would pay a ten per cent guarantee would be $200 million. Although it seems to be a contradiction, the fact is that in the first three years we made $250 million available. Actually, the amount of guaranteed loans for the first three years was $35 million. The amount in the next three years was $135 million; therefore the total of the first six years was $170 million of the $250 million provided. Now we are dropping all mention of the original guarantee; for the next three years we are going to make the $200 million available for loans in this period of three years, of which we guarantee ten per cent.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: What would the indication be if you took the rate of increase of the last few years and projected it three years forward?


James Sinclair: I have the actual table here. That would be the best way of showing it. The last three years was as follows: $30 million, $45 million and $63 million, a total

Farm Improvement Loans of $130 million odd over the last three years. So that it looks at the moment, especially with those minor restrictions on credit which we are now making, as though $200 million will be all right for the next three years. If it is not-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You can
always come back and ask for more.


James Sinclair: In the third year we can come back, especially since this act has won such commendation from the farmers and hon. members of every party in the house.


John Alpheus Charlton: What happened to the $80
million which was not taken up in the first six years? Was it put back in the treasury?


James Sinclair: No money is set aside at all for this. Actually, all that this has cost the treasury so far has been the $19,000 in claims which the banks could not recover in 1949 and 1950. We are just limiting our liability. It is the banks that make the loans. We do not put up any money at all. We say, we are not going to be responsible for losses of more than ten per cent of the $200 million gross lent by all the banks in the next three years.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the government taken into consideration at all the increasing of the maximum loan from $3,000 to a greater amount, say $4,000?


James Sinclair: We had quite a discussion on that on Tuesday night, and at the beginning of this discussion I pointed out that consideration had been given to it. But the evidence of loans did not seem to show very great need for it, because the average loan over the entire six years of operation has been $980; the average group of loans is between $300 and $1,500. Less than 1.3 per cent of loans paid in the last six years is for $3,000.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think there is any need at the present time to increase the $3,000 limit. I am thinking mainly of the purposes of the act. In Saskatchewan, and in the prairie provinces, in regard to machinery, the most expensive implement on the farm is a $5,000 combine. I think almost any farmer who contemplates buying a $5,000 combine feels that he must have $2,000 cash before he can buy such an expensive implement. If the prices of machinery keep going up and up and if inflation stays with us, before very long that $3,000 ceiling may be too low. I think the same thing would apply to the $200 million total ceiling on the loans that may be made in the three years. The sum of $200 million is enough for the coming year, and certainly I would think it is enough for the first two years. In the third year, if prices

continue to rise, and there is at the same time a reasonable production of farm implements, lumber and building materials, the $200 million may need to be increased toward the end of the three-year period.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While the fact that the average loan is $1,000 does seem on the face of it a complete answer to the suggestion that you should raise the limit above $3,000, does it go further than that? Is there a feeling that actually to lend more than $3,000 is unwise in the contemplation of those who set up the act? Will the parliamentary assistant say this to us; if, in fact, it should turn out that rising prices should cause frequent applications for loans of more than $3,000, the matter may be considered?


James Sinclair: That is quite true. The matter would certainly be reviewed, because this act has been a very useful one. The hon. member for Greenwood has I think put his finger on another point. After all, the real intent of this act was not to help every farmer in he country, particularly not those prosperous farmers, to buy probably the biggest and best machines on the market-


Hazen Robert Argue: They are not all prosperous.


James Sinclair: A farmer who was buying a new $5,000 machine would not have to put up very much because he could get $3,000. In any case, he could get two-thirds of the cost up to $4,500 even under our restricted credit rulings on the cost of it; and a farmer buying equipment of that size should be able to put up the balance himself. That is certainly in accord with the hope of the Minister of Finance that more and more people will be paying cash instead of using credit at the present time in purchases of every description.


Victor Quelch: Will the agreement reached between the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks curtailing loans have the tendency to curtail loans under this act?


James Sinclair: No; the suggestion of this farm improvement credit curtailment came from the government itself. The discussion between the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks had to do with business loans and personal loans. The restrictions on these farm improvement loans suggested limits on time, and they are spelled out in regulations. I pointed out on Tuesday night that the new regulations, published on January 24, 1951, cut back the time of repayment of loans. For example, you used to be able to pay off a $400 loan in two years; now you must pay it off in eighteen months. A separate directive has been given. I put that list on Hansard on Tuesday night.


Victor Quelch: I thought there might be a general restrictive policy which indirectly might affect this act.


James Sinclair: No.


Mr. Sinnotl:: Following up the ceiling mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia, may I say that this particular clause does not apply only to the increase in the price of machinery. It also applies to the increase in the price of cattle. A man who has a lot of feed grain, as has happened in the west in the past year, will be able to buy only half the amount of livestock that he could buy previously. The government should keep its eyes on this matter with a view to raising the ceiling if high prices continue.


James Sinclair: I had the table, but I have given it to Hansard. With regard to the $3,000 loan, a very small number of these were made for the purchase of livestock. The largest percentage of these loans was made for the purchase of agricultural equipment. I doubt whether two per cent of these $3,000 loans was made for the purchase of livestock. But the table will be in Hansard in the morning.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 24, to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1 Short title.
Mr. Garson:: Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the great importance of the subject matter with which this bill is concerned, the debate which took place on the second reading was of a high order, if I may express that opinion. The only regrettable feature of it was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is that we did not have with us to add the important contribution which he always made to discussions of this sort the former member for Kinder-sley, Mr. Jaenicke. I was very saddened one day when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar told me that Mr. Jaenicke was extremely ill. I immediately wrote Mr. Jaenicke a long chatty letter about some of
Emergency Powers Act the legal problems which had arisen here only to find with dismay that about a day after it had been sent his death was announced. I am sure that everyone regrets his passing, because in dealing with matters of constitutional law he made a contribution which was not excelled by that of any hon. member on either side of this house.
The main policy issues of this bill have been pretty well covered. They may be discussed again and if they are I should like to reply to any further criticisms that may be made. It will expedite discussion in committee if I deal at this time with certain specific criticisms which were directed against the bill, largely by the hon. members for Kamloops and Eglinton. Inasmuch as the matters they have raised are related to a greater or lesser degree to one another it might perhaps be expedient for me to deal with them all at the same time.
The first criticism was that this bill might lead to an unwarranted invasion of provincial rights. In that connection I will perhaps be labouring the obvious by pointing out that the bill is manifestly brought forth as a result of the creation of an emergency which threatens the security of the nation. That emergency makes it imperative that measures should be taken in the interests of national defence. The defence which is involved in this bill is not only the defence of the federal government but of all provincial governments and of all citizens of Canada. I do not see how it can be logically argued, as long as the orders in council which are passed under this bill, if it becomes operative, are confined strictly to the powers granted under it, that this will be an invocation of powers by the governor in council which may be regarded as an encroachment upon provincial authority.
If this parliament, which is specifically empowered by section 91 of the British North America Act to deal with matters of defence, cannot in this emergency invest the governor in council with authority to deal with such matters as come under the heading of defence, although they may in another aspect come under provincial jurisdiction under the heading of property and civil rights, then we would have a constitution which would be unworkable indeed. The granting to the federal governor in council of jurisdiction to make defence preparations contemplates the giving to the governor in council of authority to deal with precisely the kind of emergency with which we are now confronted.
The second criticism was that the bill provides for an unwarranted interference with individual rights. This argument was developed by both the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton. As I
794	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act understood their remarks, they were based upon the omission of the word "arrest" from the specific powers excluded from the act. The War Measures Act provides in effect that the government may by order in council provide for the arrest, detention, exclusion or deportation of any person. This bill omits to include in the powers granted any provision for detention, exclusion or deportation of any person. Indeed it goes on to exclude those powers, but it does not exclude the power of "arrests". Whereupon my friends drew the inference that there is something sinister about the omission of the word "arrest" and that the government instructed the draftsman of the bill to leave out the word "arrest" in order that it might retain the power of arrest by executive fiat and in that way invade the liberty of the subject.
The reason for that omission is neither sinister nor mysterious. It was not an oversight because the matter was considered carefully by the draftsman of the bill. The reason the word "arrest" was omitted from these exclusions, thereby leaving the power of arrest with the governor in council, will be made clear if hon. members will look at the bill itself. They will see that in section three there is a provision for the creation of offences by order in council, the offence of violating the orders which the governor in council may make pursuant to this act. The governor in council has the power to provide that individuals may be fined or imprisoned for not obeying the orders and regulations made pursuant to the powers conveyed by this bill.


Mr, Fleming:: I think the minister will agree that it is not confined to that matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I quite agree. This is a customary provision, not only in statutes of this parliament but in provincial statutes. The lieutenant governor in council or the governor in council are empowered to make regulations and provide for their enforcement. Obviously if one is going to create a hew offence it will not be worth while unless some provision is made to enforce it.


Mr. Drew:: Would the minister give us an illustration of the type of provincial statute to which he is referring?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not like to undertake to quote with accuracy, but my impression is that in most provinces there are regulations made by the lieutenant governor in council dealing for example with the operation of dairies and prescribing certain rules of sanitation. Such regulations would provide that if there is a breach of the regulations certain steps will be taken to enforce them. I am sure my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, from his wide knowledge


of provincial administration, must recollect many examples of regulations of that kind which have been made.


George Alexander Drew: I will not interrupt the minister again on this, but I must confess that I cannot remember any provincial legislation conferring any such powers as those contemplated in this section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But making regulations-


George Alexander Drew: Yes, but not making regulations of this kind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -accompanied by provision for their enforcement. Let me ask my hon. friend a question. Does he not recollect that regulations are made under the Ontario health act-I do not know whether that is the proper title-by the lieutenant governor in council?


George Alexander Drew: There are a number of provisions for regulations relating to administrative responsibilities under acts of a nature which call for adjustment from time to time to, shall we say, the ordinary practices and circumstances that must be met. What I am pointing out is that in this case the rules and regulations are rules and regulations that obviously contemplate the declaration of severe penalties for as yet unstated offences, and the word "arrest" relates to all these. I know of no similar provision in any provincial statute, and I was simply asking the minister if he could illustrate it by reference to some provincial statute he has in mind in that respect.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure I could turn up
the exact reference but speaking from memory, and confining it to the province with which I am most familiar, I would say we had in the province of Manitoba-and I am sure my hon. friend can recollect the same thing in the case of the province of Ontario-very elaborate health regulations that took up a good deal of space in pamphlets put out by the government. If my memory serves me rightly there was provision in those regulations for their adequate enforcement. Whether or not those provisions provided for arrest I would not like to say at the moment, but certainly they provided for fines, and if I remember correctly they also provided imprisonment in certain circumstances.
At any rate in this particular case, as the leader of the opposition correctly states, the powers which are being conveyed are of a wider and more important character perhaps than those which are ordinarily exercised by the lieutenant governor in council in a province. When they are being conveyed-and to take a counterpart, under the

War Measures Act they resulted in the wartime prices and trade board-obviously provision must be made tor their enforcement, and it would be rather absurd if in providing for imprisonment no provision was made for the arrest of the offender.
May I point out that where the power of arrest is continued but not any longer in juxtaposition with the power of detention- which is not given by the bill-not any longer as an adjunct to detention, when a man is arrested under the power that is under discussion here he is arrested only for the purpose of being brought to trial in the ordinary way before the ordinary courts with all of his rights of habeas corpus and all of the other safeguards which are thrown around the liberty of the individual.
With deference, I think the confusion has arisen in the minds of the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton because they have failed to distinguish between arrest as an adjunct to detention and deportation and the law which contemplates the withdrawal-I will confess under conditions of war-of individual liberties by executive fiat; but arrest in its present context is merely a part of the necessary method of enforcement of the order in council that may be passed pursuant to this bill if enacted.


Mr. Fleming:: If the minister has confidence in that argument why does he need to retain in the governor in council the power to make orders in council with respect to arrest when he is not asking for the power to make orders in council with respect to detention, and when under section 3 of the bill power to prescribe penalties by way of fine and imprisonment is vested in the governor in council?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I can answer that
question quite definitely. It is simply because in the judgment of the gentlemen who drafted the bill it was unwise and unnecessary to rely upon the provisions in the existing law, that is, the law that would exist before these orders in council were passed, for any arrest of a person in respect of an offence which will not come into existence until the governor general in council invokes the provisions of the bill, and that rather than have any doubt about it it was much preferable that we should provide in this existing legislation that when the governor general in council created some offence, perhaps under an analogue of the wartime prices and trade board, or under an order in council which has not yet been passed, it should be clear in creating the offence that in the enforcement of the order in council or regulation there would be the power of arrest
Emergency Powers Act but not the power of detention, deportation and the like. In such a case when an accused, having offended against the provisions of that order in council, was brought to justice he would have available to him all of the protections which a man has available under any of the existing statutes or the Criminal Code at the present time.


George Alexander Drew: I want to interrupt as little as possible, but so that this may be in sequence may I ask the Minister of Justice what there is under this measure that would prevent an order being passed under the section to which he now refers which would state that the habeas corpus provision would not apply?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should think that there
would be a great deal. With no power of detention by executive fiat, without any question I think it would be ultra vires of the governor in council to make any provision in the order in council denying the writ of habeas corpus to the subject, and I think most of the lawyer members of this assembly will agree with me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister not recall
what was done in the espionage cases? I am not asking for an opinion as to whether it was justified. The argument was that it was justified, but under the War Measures Act, containing very similar powers, an order in council was passed which effectively denied the right of habeas corpus and the right of representation by counsel.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I must apologize for the
infirmity of my language. I have been labouring the point for about five minutes now and it has made no impression whatever upon the hon. member for Kamloops. The difference between the two statutes that we are discussing, the War Measures Act on the one hand and this measure on the other, is that under the War Measures Act there is provision for arrest, detention, deportation, and so on. In other words, there are pretty broad powers to interfere with the liberty of the individual by executive fiat whereas under the present bill, as I think was pointed out by the hon. member for Eglinton at some length and with considerable accuracy except in one respect-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just one?	.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -the powers of detention, deportation and so on are not taken. I am only speaking offhand now but I suggest that the validity of the orders in council passed with reference to the espionage case would depend upon the language used in the War Measures Act, which included not only the power to arrest but the power to detain, deport, and so on.
796	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act Mr. Drew: But may I ask the minister just what happens after the arrest? Does the policeman go up and tag him, as though he were playing a game, and say, "You are arrested" and leave him there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend's question can be answered with the greatest of ease. Exactly the same thing happens then that happens when a man is arrested for committing a robbery. He is brought in; the law is examined, and he is brought before the court. If he applies for bail, if he applies for habeas corpus, if he invokes any of those traditional bulwarks of British liberty, they are available to him; none are denied. But if you create a new offence under this act or by passing an order in council you must have some provision for bringing to justice any person who may contravene that order in council.
The next point raised was that while in our act there was provision for the tabling of orders passed pursuant to this bill and further subsequent annulment of these orders by a resolution of the Commons and the Senate, their objection was, as I understood it-and I hope my friends will correct me if I am wrong-that this resolution would have to be moved as a private member's resolution. It would be subject to all the disabilities of procedure which pertain to the resolutions of private members. It might be some time before it could reach a place of priority on the agenda which would enable it to be heard, especially if the government did not want it heard. The suggestion, as I took it, was that the government would employ tactics of that sort to delay its being brought to a hearing.


George Alexander Drew: What if parliament was not sitting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not necessarily. The minister will recall that in the normal procedure, when the session is about half way over the government asks parliament to consent to the giving up of private members' days.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the regulation might be passed when the session was more than half over.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not want to labour this point because nothing in particular turns on it, but in the language used by the hon. member for Eglinton I detected a certain suggestion that the government would not receive with too much enthusiasm a resolution of that kind-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would they?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and, shall I say, would not facilitate it. But whatever may have been the intention of the hon. member I want to put a quietus to this point. 1 have conferred with the Prime Minister, and he has authorized me to assure the house that the government is prepared to waive any existing rules in order to get promptly before the house for its consideration any resolution moved by a member of the opposition whose purpose is to accomplish the annulment of an order in council passed pursuant to this emergency powers bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the Senate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I cannot speak with any great authority as far as the other place is concerned, but my impression is that the accumulation of business in the other place ordinarily is not such that any problem would be presented in having a resolution of this character brought promptly to the attention of the members of that body. In fairness to the government I think I should point out that the position I have just stated is not a new position for the government to take. When the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act of 1945 was before the house it contained a provision similar to the one now under discussion. During the course of that debate the Prime Minister, who was then minister of justice, gave an undertaking on behalf of the government with regard to that act which in effect is the same as that I have just stated in relation to the present bill. I quote his words from page 3003 of Hansard for December 5, 1945:
The third subsection provides that the orders shall be laid before parliament and that there shall be a period of twenty-eight days during which, in either house, a resolution may be moved to annul; and once more, if such a resolution is moved, the government will do its best to bring it to a decision at once, because it has no fear that the kind of things it will pass will not have the approval of the majority of this house, whatever may be the views of those who challenge the order in the resolution tabled.


George Alexander Drew: In other words there is not much doubt about what will happen.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; and in that connection, why should there be? My hon. friends of the opposition seem to think that because they are opposed to these measures, though they are in a fairly pronounced minority, parliament is also opposed. Well, surely the majority has some rights in this house, and if the supporters of the government are prepared to endorse what has been authorized by the governor in council, in their judgment and wisdom, then why should they not have the right to do so?


George Alexander Drew: That is a beautifully naive explanation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I have omitted any of the points raised I hope hon. gentlemen will call those omissions to my attention. The next point made was that the present bill calls for the tabling of only orders in council and not for regulations which may be made under this bill, and that is objected to as being inadequate. They say we should table everything. I believe there are important reasons why the view they have expressed is quite erroneous. Under the act it is provided in effect that orders-what kind of orders?-of a legislative character shall be tabled in the house. The first steps usually taken under a bill of this sort are orders in council of a legislative nature, because they provide for the set-up under which the regulations that may be passed will operate. Thus an analogue of the wartime prices and trade board, for example, when it gets in operation under these orders which are legislative in character, will make subordinate regulations. One of the emanations of the wartime prices and trade board had to do with rent control, and it made thousands of separate regulations or orders dealing with what was to happen as between John Doe and Richard Roe in reference to what rent is to be paid for a certain house, what extension was to be given and so on. Surely it is fair to the members of this house and to everyone concerned to provide, as this bill does, that the orders in council that are legislative in character shall be tabled, and that on balance it would be unwise to provide, even from the standpoint of parliament, that the legislative orders parliament might wish to check should be cluttered up with a myriad of executive regulations in which this house would not be interested.
It was also suggested by my hon. friends of the opposition that there is danger of abrogation of the right of the individual to resort to the courts in connection of the operation of this act. The hon. member for Eglinton agreed with my contention that there was no section in this bill which denied any citizen of Canada access to the courts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Expressly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. But he went on to say, and quite accurately, that under the wartime powers granted by this act it would be possible for the governor general in council to deny to citizens access to the courts in respect of some action of an analogue of the wartime prices and trade board, for example, which might be set up. I think the answer to that is that what parliament has before it now has no express or direct denial of access to the court by the individual.
Emergency Powers Act
So far as any denial which may result from the invocation of the powers granted under this bill by the governor general in council is concerned, that will be an order in council which is legislative in character and it will be tabled in parliament. Provision for the consideration of it by parliament is provided right in this bill. If there is some invocation of these powers which my hon. friend or his colleagues think is an intemperate or unwise denial of access to the courts which is harmful to the liberty of Canadians, an opportunity has been expressly provided in advance by this bill for the consideration by this parliament of the merits of that denial.


Mr. Carroll:: Did I understand the minister to say that the procedure for bringing to justice any person who offends against the general regulations will be outlined by order in council also?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not like to forecast precisely the way in which it will be done.


William F. Carroll: So far as crime is concerned today, there is a general provision in the code, you see; and also where there is no provision in the specific act the provinces have made a general provision concerning the procedure to be followed in bringing persons to justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not like to give any firm undertaking as to the precise manner in which this would be done, but with that reservation my answer to the hon. member's question would be this. In passing an order in council under this bill, we would examine all of the existing provisions for administration to see to what extent they were properly applicable to any action which we might propose under our order in council. Then, if they were not completely applicable we would invoke the quite wide powers under this bill to make them applicable, and to fill in any of the gaps. It was in part for that reason we retained these powers of arrest to be covered by order in council.
As I understood the member for Eglinton, he was suggesting that when this order in council was passed it could contain those powers granted by this bill in a clause worded something like this: that no order or regulation made under and by virtue of this order in council shall be questioned in any court by writ of certiorari, and so forth. I confess that under those powers such a provision could be inserted in the order in council, but I say that if it were inserted it would be a legislative order in council which would be tabled in parliament, and could later be considered and attacked by my hon. friend if he thought the powers were unfair in precisely the same manner as he can attack any specific provision contained in the bill.

Emergency Powers Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who decides which orders in council are legislative and which are not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the answer to that is this. I have been referring all the time to the analogue of the wartime prices and trade board, because that is a very good example of the type of administrative body this legislation contemplates. Manifestly the members of that board have not the power to clothe themselves with powers. Any powers which they exercise must be vested in them by the governor general in council pursuant to the powers given under this statute. Whatever line may be drawn including legislative orders in council and excluding those which are executive in character, it certainly will include the order in council which sets up a board and says what powers it shall exercise, and such a legislative order in council is the one which would contain a provision clothing such a board with its powers. Such an order in council would come before parliament, and be open to review by parliament in just the same manner as if the provision were contained in this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words any order passed by the analogue of the wartime prices and trade board would not be laid before parliament.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not say that, and I took great pains not to say that. I said that whatever division there may be made between executive orders and legislative orders, the one we are discussing would fall in the latter group.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An order setting up the board, and any order in council expanding or detracting from the powers of the board would be legislative in character and would be tabled?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could there be any orders in council passed by the governor in council relating to the board that might be considered as not being legislative in character?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, what my hon. friend is asking for is an offhand legal opinion, which I am always reluctant to give. Perhaps as a member of the house I am more or less forced to give an opinion, but I shall give it without prejudice. I believe that the orders in council to which my hon. friend refers would be legislative in character and would be tabled. I would add, although this does not arise under this bill but does arise under the Regulations Act, that members will recall there is a provision concerning certain orders in council as to which the government many entertain the


view that they should not be tabled or published. There is a provision in that act that such orders in council can be withheld from being tabled and published. That provision would apply to the orders in council we are discussing in the present context, but would not apply to them any more than it does to any of the other orders in council which are passed from time to time by the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe the minister will agree that very often regulations which are made pursuant to authority conferred in an order in council are legislative in character, sometimes equally with the order in council. Do I understand the minister to be suggesting that there may be regulations passed under the authority of this measure which would be tabled in parliament, being legislative in character, and would be subject to procedure by way of annulment?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend's question is not one which I should like to answer in the abstract way in which he has stated it. This would be my answer to his question. I should think that the proper practice would be that any such regulation as he states might preferably take the form of an order in council which would be tabled. If, by misadventure, some regulation of a legislative character came into existence, the question would arise. I must confess that right at the moment I should not like to give an offhand opinion as to whether it would be tabled, but I believe the practice which we should support, and which we would follow, subject to those difficulties of handling a tremendous volume of business which sometimes causes mistakes, is that anything which is legislative in character should be tabled. It should then be open to attack if my hon. friend wishes to attack it under the provision which is contained in this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit me to say that, while I quite agree with him that should be so, it is not the position of the matter under this bill. If the minister will look at section 2, subsection 4 of the bill, the one dealing with this annulment procedure, he will see that it applies only to orders in council. There is no provision in this bill for annulling any regulations passed pursuant to authority conferred by order in council.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister a
question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister contend
that section 5 of the 1947 act, chapter 64, of the statutes of that year preserves the rights-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that are created under an order in council that either lapses or is revoked? If he does, may I say with great respect that I think he has completely misread section 5 of the 1947 act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look
up section 19 there-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have the 1947 amendment of the Interpretation Act before me.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Look at section 19.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; the amendment of
section 19 made by section 5 of this act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Section 5 reads as follows:
5. (1) Paragraph (e) of subsection one of section nineteen of the said act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
"(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;*'
In other words, the section does not purport to maintain the life of the right. It simply purports to continue the investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All I can do is repeat what
I have just finished saying, namely, that if it is thought by my hon. friend-who in this respect does not agree with the view of those who are responsible for drafting this provision-that the point is not covered by the section that he has just referred to, there would be no objection on our part to incorporating in this language some wording which would have this effect; because certainly that is what we desire.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister would be
willing to put in the language of the War Measures Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should not like to undertake to do that. What I should be glad to undertake to do is to confer with my hon. friend, examine the merits of the point that he raises, and either satisfy him or have him satisfy me as to the adequacy of the language. The point is this. We are agreeable te

Emergency Powers Act achieving the result which my hon. friend has in mind, and we think it is achieved now. But if it is not, we desire to see that it is.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to make some observations under this section, because it is under section 1 that there can be made the general comments which would embrace the various sections of this act. At the time the resolution was before the house, which resolution had the effect of bringing into the house the bill itself, and while the bill was not yet before hon. members, the Prime Minister in his remarks indicated that it was desirable that this bill should place before this house and before parliament their responsibility for legislation and for what would be done. Following his remarks I expressed my own approval of the thought that had been expressed by the Prime Minister, to the effect that parliament was to be called upon to exercise its responsibility, and that parliament was to have the opportunity to deal with whatever measures were -to be taken. I am not attempting to quote the exact words but I think what I said accurately summarizes the effect of the explanation that was given and of my comments at that time.
We now have the bill before us. When the resolution was under consideration the prime Minister made it clear that it was intended to introduce this bill because the government did not desire to invoke the War Measures Act. I followed the Prime Minister and agreed with what he had said about the desirability of seeking to impress, in every way possible, upon the minds of the people of our country the fact that war is not inevitable and that what we are really trying to do at this time is to prepare those measures of defence which may assure peace. To the extent that any action by this government, properly taken, would produce this result,
I believe I indicated my own approval.
We have the bill before us now, and the wording of it. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is no reason for this bill to be introduced at all. This is in effect the War Measures Act, subject only to the limitations which are largely illusory, except to the extent that I shall mention, and the provisions under which orders in council might be annulled if the government decided to concur in the views expressed by any hon. members who indicate it should be annulled.
I hope I made it clear before that 1 was not suggesting the War Measures Act should be invoked. I do not think it should be invoked, and I do not think we should be called upon now to pass a bill in this form. As far as the question of granting emergency powers is concerned, I think there is general agreement that, under proper definition and


proper limitation, certain emergency powers undoubtedly will be necessary. For that reason the principle as to whether emergency powers shall be introduced is not the point in issue so much as the details within this bill, and the wide open powers that are conferred, so similar to the War Measures Act.
Let us see exactly what this bill does. Let us see to what extent it in any way limits the authority of the government to a greater extent than would the War Measures Act itself. Section 2 provides that:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
Except for the restrictions contained in subsection 2, and the provision in subsection 4, which makes it possible to take certain proceedings in this house and in this parliament for annulment, that is simply a wide open declaration, similar to the declaration contained in the War Measures Act. Nothing has yet been said either by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Justice which gives the slightest indication to hon. members as to what parliament is being asked to do, other than simply to say that except for these very limited restrictions the government can do anything that it deems necessary at any time to meet whatever circumstances arise out of this emergency. That after all is precisely what the War Measures Act permits, and therefore the only thing that is before us, other than the wide open powers of the War Measures Act, is the effect of the limitation and the practical possibility of annulment referred to in subsection 4 of section 2. Subsection 2 (a) provides that the powers conferred on the governor in council shall not include the power to make orders or regulations in relation to detention, exclusion or deportation of any person. The word "arrest'' contained in the corresponding provision of the War Measures Act is not excluded, as has already been explained by the Minister of Justice.
As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the word "arrest" then relates to the power of the governor in council to prescribe penalties by way of fine, by way of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or by way of both the fine and such imprisonment. That after all brings together the word "arrest" and the provisions in subsection 3 for penalties that might be created.
The Minister of Justice says than anyone arrested, after having been charged with an offence created by an order in council under section 3 of the bill now before us. would

have available the habeas corpus procedure, or any similar protection of the individual. I cannot see how it is possible for the Minister of Justice to argue, in view of what has already been done on other occasions, that the governor in council under this bill, if it becomes law, would not be in a position to declare that habeas corpus shall not apply to any proceedings taken under section 3.
The Minister of Justice smiles. The Minister of Justice, however, is well aware that under the same general powers of the War Measures Act, habeas corpus proceedings were suspended by order in council. There is nothing in this bill to suggest that the government would not have similar power in relation to any proceedings under the section set up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend permit me to make a correction? I am sure that he does not mean to indicate what is not the fact. If he will look at section 2 of the bill he will see that it reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained therein, the powers conferred on the governor in council by subsection one do not include power to make orders or regulations in relation to (a) detention, exclusion or deportation of any person. . .
That is expressly excluded from this bill, and it was expressly included in the War Measures Act. That is the difference.


George Alexander Drew: That has no relationship whatever to the proposition I am now putting forward. What that provided for in the War Measures Act was that an order could be made detaining individuals, as was done in a number of cases, and excluding or deporting persons where that was deemed advisable. But in this particular case, if the detention is detention upon the basis of a charge under the ordinary proceedings, then I submit there is nothing in this bill that would prevent an order in council being made which would declare that in the case of detention under any order in council passed as a result of subsection 3 habeas corpus proceedings would not be available to those detained under orders made within that section. That is what I am submitting. It certainly does prevent the sending of people into concentration camps as was done by this government without trial in many cases under the War Measures Act. But I submit that it does not prevent orders which would deny certain protection, once the steps have been taken to lay a charge in accordance with whatever penalties might be imposed under section 3 of this bill if it becomes law. Such orders would lay down the procedure or rather would deny the effect of some other act.
The Minister of Justice will recall that many orders were passed under the War Measures Act which contained the phrase,
Emergency Powers Act "notwithstanding the provisions of such and such an act", not habeas corpus alone but other individual safeguards. It was quite a customary procedure under acts very similar to this for the government to pass orders in council which stated clearly that notwithstanding the provisions of any other act certain things could be done.
I agree that under this legislation a charge must be laid, that the charge would be laid under whatever order was passed under section 3. If bail were permitted1 a man might be free to leave just as he would in an ordinary case. The question of habeas corpus would not apply. But for the sake of argument let us assume that the court regarded a case as being a serious one and imposed bail that practically meant it was impossible for it to be provided. That has been done at times with the knowledge that that will be the effect. I submit that there is nothing here to prevent the passage of an order in council which would provide that some other act of this parliament shall not apply in such proceedings. I am not going to go further than to put that proposition forward in the conviction that that is so and that there is no restriction which would prevent that being done.
We come now to the next exception in section 2, subsection 2(b), which provides that there shall not be power to pass orders or regulations in relation to censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings. Undoubtedly that provision is desirable, but I would point out that it would be very easy to introduce a bill giving such protection without passing a bill of this kind simply for that purpose. I would think that such a provision is a highly desirable one.
On the other hand, I would point out that if the government is not going to deal with things of that kind there is all the more reason why the government should bring down very soon in this session, because of the emergency which the Minister of Justice has described as grave, some legislation which will make it possible for the government to deal with those subversive communist publications which are seeking to undermine the thoughts of newcomers to this country in languages that they can understand better than the two recognized languages of this country.
The very fact that the government, properly, is limiting its power in regard to censorship and the control and suppression of publications and writings, and by that very fact in this emergency would deny itself the opportunity to deal with these subversive

Emergency Powers Act publications put out in languages which perhaps can be understood only by many people who have just come to this country and who desire to become Canadian citizens, does indicate the need for immediate action along that line. I leave that thought with the minister.
I would point out once again that simply to provide such protection as this for the press and for individuals in this country did not require an only slightly modified form of the War Measures Act which is now before us.
The third limitation is contained in section 2, subsection 2(c), which provides that the government may not make orders in council or regulations in relation to expenditures of money other than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament except expenditure of moneys from any fund or account established by order or regulation in connection with a scheme of control for the purposes of that scheme of control.
If the Minister of Justice can explain that section in more understandable words I feel sure the members of this house would like to know what is intended to be done under this section, no matter how little they may know about what the government intends to do otherwise. In so far as I am able to read this mumbo-jumbo, it simply means that the government is free to set up any fund of any size for any purpose it declares, and then having set up such fund or funds the government shall not be free to spend other moneys apart from those funds which are not provided for by an appropriation of parliament.
Unless there is some limitation which I am unable to read into that rather involved wording, it simply means that at any time the government wishes to have funds available apart from those provided by appropriations in parliament they can create a fund so large and under such terms that they could carry on anything they wished to carry on without this limitation really having any practical effect. If that contention is true it seems to me that the exceptions are very important. Certainly the real exceptions that are made could have been introduced in some declaratory bill and could have established the rights of citizens in that respect.
The other point is the question of annulment. This is an illusory protection. After forty days, no matter how important the order may be, proceedings may be taken, if parliament is in session, by way of resolution to seek the annulment of a particular order. What happens during the extended periods when parliament is not in session? Orders having profound effect upon the freedom of the individual and the whole economy of

this country could stand unchallenged and there would be no procedure of which I am aware by which the members of this parliament would have any opportunity to exercise any measure of authority over what had been done. I submit that if, as the Prime Minister said, we wish to deal with legislation in this house with the thought that this emergency is one which may extend for a considerable period we should retain the parliamentary procedure of our democracy as much as possible.
Then I suggest that this War Measures Act only slightly restricted is not the bill to bring before the house but rather that we should have a bill telling us exactly what the government intends to do. After all, one of the most important issues in this struggle- and it has been said by those with knowledge and authority that the struggle may last for ten, twenty, twenty-five or even fifty years- is whether we are going to retain the processes of democracy in reality, whether we are going to carry forward the business of the country by the rule of law, or whether because of the emergency we are going to abandon these practices and for long years place in the hands of the government undefined powers which have not in any way been stated or worded by the members of parliament.
I repeat that, subject to these minor limitations and the illusory protection afforded by section 2, subsection 4, the bill simply says in effect that because of the emergency the government can do anything that it thinks should be done. I cannot see where that is an overstatement. I do not know where there is any restriction on the generality of that statement in this measure. Certainly the extent to which orders under the War Measures Act, so similar to this-in fact with exactly similar wording-were upheld, indicates how wide the powers are.
What is the government asking parliament to pass? It was indicated that if the government decided to adopt any measures of control it would be under this legislation that they would bring them into being. The government has indicated that if a national registration of manpower is undertaken by it it will be under this act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It could be under this act. I was asked if the act would be sufficient in terms to allow it to be done. There was no statement that it would be done under the act. I was replying to a question whether the terms of the act would be broad enough to cover that.


George Alexander Drew: The answer of the Prime Minister, as he now says, was that it could be done. I must confess that the interpretation

I placed upon that was what I have now said, that if it were to be done this would be the act because I was not' aware that the government had indicated that it contemplated any other legislation. I recall the very clear, and I thought very understandable, statement of the Prime Minister that events might bring about the exercise of any of these powers under this act, and I do not know of any other act under which it could be done.
I wish to leave no interpretation on the Prime Minister's words beyond what he himself has placed upon them, but it seemed to me that was the reasonable interpretation in view of the absence of any other legislation under which it could be done. We now have something new in our minds. The Minister of Justice has referred today to a board. What board? We do not know. The act does not say. There is no statement as to what board he has in mind. Therefore any remarks that he has made about what the board would do, or the kind of regulations that would be brought before the house, involve undefined orders relating to an undefined board which would be called upon to deal with an undefined subject, and that is supposed to be responsible government at a time when the responsibility of government to parliament is in fact the essence of the very struggle in which we are engaged today.
In dealing with the points that had been raised, the Minister of Justice spoke of what had been said about the extent to which the bill would make it possible for the government, by order in council, to disregard any of the ordinary constitutional limitations upon its authority over those things specifically placed under the authority of the provincial governments by the British North America Act. As I recall his words, he sought to emphasize that in a grave emergency of this kind it was not just defence of this house or defence of this government that was involved but defence of the provinces and of the people of Canada.
Again, if this emergency in fact is an emergency that may continue for years to come, then what happens to this constitution that was going to be rewritten? Are we to have no real constitution for possibly fifty years except the discretion of the government from day to day? That would be the result. What is the effect on the discussions that have already taken place? I submit that the provincial governments, which now have under consideration certain financial proposals as an alternative for the taxing powers conferred upon them at confederation, simply could not know whether the amount proposed would be adequate or 80709-511
Emergency Powers Act inadequate because under this act the dominion government could at any time pass an order that would have a profound effect upon the revenues of the provinces. Therefore the fixed amount which they would receive would not tell them whether or not they were going to have enough to carry on their business if they did not know what was going to be available to them from the remaining fields of taxation.
Let me give a clear illustration. For the sake of argument let us suppose that the government under this act, as it could, passed regulations with respect to the amount of gasoline that would be available for motorists, or passed regulations as to the use of automobiles. Immediately that would have a direct impact upon revenues available from that particular source, and the remaining taxes available to the provinces, in addition to the amounts now under consideration, might change greatly as a result of the passage of some order of which they would be wholly unaware until the federal government had already made its decision.
Again, let us assume that the government decided to exercise its emergency powers with respect to the amount of alcoholic beverages that could be produced or sold, not an impossible consideration. If they did that it would have a very considerable effect upon the revenues of all provinces. The minister may say that no such thing would be contemplated, but I would be interested in what the province of Newfoundland, so recently joined with the rest of us in one nation, would think of the possible effect of an act of this kind upon the agreement which defined their rights and made certain pro; visions which could be made relatively ineffective as a result of other things done under this legislation.
I suggest that if we are going to show our people that we can carry forward democracy in the face of this threat, the first place to make democracy operative is right here in this house. The first step we should take in tackling that first line of defence of our democracy is to make sure that the members of this house, who represent the people of Canada, do in fact have the opportunity to exercise their judgment and discretion as the representatives of the people as to what laws shall govern this country. I think it is for the members of this house to know, with a measure of clarity we do not now have, exactly what powers the government is really asking and what they have in mind. If they have in mind the wide powers of the War Measures Act, why bring in that act with only a couple of hairs cut off the tail?

Emergency Powers Act It is the same animal with just a slight clipping, which has not greatly changed its appearance or anything about it.
This is not just something for us to pass over lightly. This is not just something put forward by the opposition because, as the Minister of Justice indicated, they sometimes feel it their duty to raise objections. I am putting this forward with the utmost earnestness in the belief that perhaps the first duty of the members of this parliament, next to the assurance of forces in being to meet such obligations as this country has assumed or will assume under its collective responsibilities, is to make sure that government by the people is a reality. Government of the people by the people is a reality only when the representatives of the people decide on the laws that are going to affect the lives of those who sent the members here. I would point out that when our neighbouring democracy-which it is perfectly true has a system very different from ours but which nevertheless is founded upon the basic principles of democracy which came from Magna Carta-introduced	emergency legislation,
they said what boards they were setting up. Congress was asked to decide whether certain bodies would be created for the purpose of dealing with the affairs of the people represented by the members of congress. The bill in the United States, which would deal with some of the powers that have been suggested as possible powers to be exercised under this act if it becomes law, consists of more than 900 sections. I am not mentioning that fact to suggest that the length of the document necessarily indicates how good it is. I do point out, however, that when the members of congress, representing people who live lives so similar to ours in an economy very much more like ours in many ways than that of any other country in the world, considered that legislation, they knew what they were doing. The members of congress knew what powers they were conferring upon the government. What remained to ibe decided was the administrative authority of those bodies that were to be set up.
Here we are simply left in the position that we cannot even guess what the government has in mind). Some people, perhaps wrongly, interpreted the remarks of the Prime Minister in an earlier debate as indicating that the government was considering the possibility of price and other controls; and as I understand it this was the legislation under which those controls would be brought into effect if that should be done. Since that time, however, through a speech by the Prime Minister at the Chateau Laurier and) a speech by the Minister of Trade and'

Commerce at the Royal York hotel in Toronto, hon. members have learned1 that there are very definite limitations as to the intentions of the government in this respect. The press has been very helpful to us in that regard. We now know, if it has been reported correctly, that it is not the intention of the government to introduce controls of that kind unless we face something in the nature of general war.
If that is so, it would: seem that we do not need; such wide open powers as these. If the government has something else in mind, we should be informed. And if the government has something else in mind, why does not the Minister of Justice instruct his draftsmen to put into understandable sections exactly what it has in mind^ and then let the members of this house exercise the judgment they are supposed to exercise as to whether this government shall have this power? I conceive that to be the basic principle of democracy that we are trying to preserve. After all, whether or not we are inclined to realize it day by day, this is the place in all Canada where the kind of democracy we have in this country is to be determined.
Right now we have before us a bill that suspends our constitution at the whim of the government and leaves the members of this house with no measure of authority over the laws that are to affect the lives of our people in very important ways. That is so with this exception, that if the house is sitting, and only if it is sitting, after forty days we may have the privilege of introducing a resolution which would annul any step which might have have been taken. I hope I may not be criticized as cynical if I suggest that the Minister of Justice has given a fair indication of just how much we might hope to accomplish with a resolution of that kind. The Minister of Justice does not take kindly to even courts disagreeing with his legal opinions. When he is so unwilling to accept the decision of the court which has been enlarged by this government to become the court of final resort to which the people of Canada may appeal and seeks stiff to go to the privy council, which he regarded as an emblem of colonialism only a short time ago, can we expect that he will be greatly inclined to listen to arguments which might be put forward here by any hon. members who may disagree with the opinions that he has expressed?
I was interested in the statement he made today that, while perhaps it was not his role to give legal opinions, nevertheless he was going to do so. I suggest it is his role. I suggest that, as Minister of Justice and *attorney general, it is his duty. I also suggest

it is equally his duty to be prepared to listen to other arguments, and to be willing to place before his legal draftsmen the suggestions that may be made, and not to indicate to the house, as he has this afternoon, that with the wise judgment of this government it is most unlikely there would be any different result if a resolution came forward. I would say, in view of the statement he has made, we could pretty well wipe out any thought that section 2, subsection 4, is intended to have any real effect. In any event, it would not have any effect during a considerable part of the year when orders of immense importance might be made while the house was not in session.
The Minister of Justice is also anxious to create the impression that the government has not any thought of going so far as it could go under the War Measures Act. If that is so, then I suggest that much more extensive limitations be included than those now put forward. I repeat my contention that if this house is to be an instrument of democracy, which is government by the people through the thought, judgment and expressed opinion of the representatives of the people, then this act should go back, and it should go back on the decision of the Minister of Justice himself. We should have brought before us an act which really tells what the government has in mind, what powers it is really conferring, and what the government will do. It is not only that we should want to know what the government will not do, but many of the members of this house want to know what the government is going to do about a number of things of immense importance. Unless there is a change in the attitude of the government we are simply going to be told that is not for us. This all-wise government is going to decide.
The furthest the curtain has been pulled aside from the secrecy of that exalted body, the government of Canada, is that the minister has referred to an undefined board dealing with the affairs of this country under undefined powers and exercising those powers for an undefined period and to an undefined extent. Now, Mr. Chairman, if that is democracy, then it is time the textbooks on democracy were rewritten. I suggest in real earnestness to the Minister of Justice that there is no urgency in regard to the exact date on which this bill passes. Unless the government is prepared to say there is something being held up, and tell us what it is, then he should advise his draftsmen to present a truly democratic bill to this house
Emergency Powers Act so the members will know what the government is going to do, and what powers we are asked to confer upon the government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to make a speech about this, but there are certain points which evidently the leader of the opposition has overlooked. He held up to us the terrible prospect that this world may be facing a long period during which this emergency condition may persist, and that by this bill, for the whole of that period, parliament was going to suspend the Canadian constitution. If the hon. member had read the fourth section of the bill, which has to do with its duration, he would have found that the act will expire on May 31, 1952.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the Prime Minister if he gives an undertaking that the act will not be extended past that date?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will give no such undertaking; but I will give the undertaking that if it is done parliament will have to do it. It will not be done by the government.


George Alexander Drew: Parliament will not know any more then than it does now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not catch what the hon. member said.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Prime Minister tell us that parliament will know any more then than it does now concerning the powers the government will exercise under the bill?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would hope that parliament and its members would know as much as the government knows about the future of this world. It is one of great uncertainty, and one in which it would be, I believe, presumptuous for anyone to say, what is going to be his course for the next year or any indicated period of time. This government has not that presumption.
The hon. member says the exclusion of the right to deal with detention would not exclude the possibility of taking away by order in council the right of habeas corpus. If the hon. member will just reflect upon what habeas corpus is, he will see that it is a high court judge saying: have the body of so and so whom you are detaining brought before me so that I can look into the causes of his detention and decide whether or not that detention is legal. Then, if the hon. member will read the bill, he will see that no regulation whatever can be made in relation to detention. I believe it is quite evident that any regulation that may be made affecting the right of habeas corpus would be a regulation concerning detention. Habeas corpus is essentially something in relation to detention, and is nothing else.
806	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act
The hon. member says that after forty days there can be a resolution of annulment. I believe that was probably a lapsus linguae. It is within forty days of the tabling of the order in the house that the resolution can be made. If hon. members feel that period is too short and it should be extended beyond forty days, we will have no objection to that.
With respect to the other matter that was raised, I believe by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he will recall that last year we passed the Regulations Act. In that act it was provided that every regulation-making authority shall, within seven days after it makes a regulation, transmit copies of the regulation ini English and in French to the clerk of the privy council. Thereafter it is the duty of the clerk to publish those regulations in the Canada Gazette, and it is the duty of the government to table them here within fifteen days of their publication in the Canada Gazette. According to the act "regulation" means:
. . . a rule, order, regulation, by-law or proclamation (i) made, in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament, by the governor in council . . .
It was provided then, and explained, that we were trying to use the broadest possible language so that it would be only those things about which an order of exemption was passed that would not have to come under the terms of this statute, and any order passed exempting a regulation or an order in council from the terms of this act has to be tabled. We had a serious discussion over that, as to whether it was proper that we should require the government to tell parliament that there was something that was not being tabled, and as to whether security might be endangered in that way; and we came to the conclusion that, at the present time, we would take the risk; and that if there was anything that we thought should not be brought to the attention of parliament, we would have to pass an order and bring that exempting order to the attention of parliament. We would try to draw that order in the form that would do the least harm to security. If there were questions about it, we would try to explain to those who were asking the questions, if we felt that we could not give the explanation openly, what it was all about and why we were not being more specific. For my part I felt hon. members would show understanding if we had to withhold something, referred to it in rather vague terms and explained to hon. members who raised any question about it why we were not going to be more explicit. If they did not show such understanding, any who did not would take the responsibility. I did not think there was


any member of parliament who was going to be anxious to take the responsibility of doing anything that might in any way be harmful to our national security.
Although the bill is drawn to apply only to orders in council-the requirement to table applies to everything-we might all feel happier if the provision for the annulling resolution could extend not merely to orders in council, but to all that comes within the term "regulations" under the Regulations Act. I do not think the government would have any objection to that. We want to bring these things to parliament and, of course, we will be doing only the kind of things that we believe parliament is not apt to repeal. We may make mistakes. We would not be human if we were not susceptible of making mistakes. We must table all these regulations and I do not know but that we might be disposed to accept an amendment, that the right to move a resolution to repeal would apply to any regulation even if not made by an order in council. In the last war regulations were made which were quite as important as anything we did by orders in council. Otherwise I think we would want to do everything by order in council.
At this time we cannot say to what extent these powers are going to have to be exercised. Th leader of the opposition says that there might be orders in council when parliament is not in session. It may be that there will be things which should be done when parliament happens not to be in session. Otherwise we would have to keep parliament in session all the time. World conditions are susceptible of rapid changes. I do not think a government would be acting properly towards parliament if it made any major decisions when parliament was not in session and did not quickly call parliament together.
I think that the power to act should be there. I hope it will not have to be exercised, but I think that the power should be there so that it could be exercised. Whenever it is exercised, whether it be in the form of an order in council or in the form of a regula-tion^ my personal opinion is that it should be subject to this proviso: if parliament frowns upon it, parliament should annul it. I think perhaps it will be possible, when we reach this section, to have it modified in such a way that the power to annul would apply to anything that comes within the definition of a regulation of a legislative character contained in the Regulations Act passed in the regular session of 1950. We attempted to make the definition allinclusive, so that everything would be brought to the attention of parliament. We took the security risk of leaving that to

apply to everything that might be done under this bill if it becomes law, in spite of the fact that there might be some things that, for security reasons, we would not want to publish broadcast. But we would have to exempt them, and we would have to bring the exempting order here. Once again, I express the hope that, when we bring an exempting order here, an hon. member would seek to get information privately with respect to any exempting order, before raising the question publicly in the house. By following that procedure I am sure we will not have any trouble about security. I am sure that no hon. member who obtained information privately would want to make it public unless he felt it was ridiculous to withhold the information on security grounds.
With respect to the extent of the powers, it would be a much easier thing to do if we could come here and say: This is what is going to have to be done and nothing more is required. That would be a much more satisfactory situation, and I would have been much happier last night if, in another capacity, I had been able to give that kind of information to an audience I was speaking to. They would also have been much happier. But that is not the kind of world we are living in. If parliament thinks that we can be trusted under these restrictions-and the restrictions provide that we shall not go beyond what is required in the circumstances -then parliament will give us those powers. But with the possibility of various things that we just cannot determine at this time having to be done, in order to meet the changing conditions, I suggest that the powers have to be drawn in fairly broad terms. We did not want them any broader than the Department of Justice told us was enough. But what they say is this: These things mean restrictions on some individuals and they are subject to contestation before the courts. It is therefore important to have the language so broad that the courts will not say: "You have gone beyond what parliament authorized you to do." I am sure there is contained here a good deal that goes far beyond what will be done by order in council or by regulation. But the Department of Justice feared-at least, that was the advice we obtained from the permanent officials-that if it was not drawn in the broad language that already had had the scrutiny of the courts and had been upheld by the courts, they would not guarantee that it would stand contestation. We were convinced that we should stay on the safe side and be able to support the legislation.
The hon. member referred to the restriction with respect to the expenditure of money in a special fund. Any special fund would
Emergency Powers Act have to be created by parliament, or it could be the kind of fund that arises out of an equalization scheme. In the case of controls and the establishment of quotas, that sort of thing existed during the last war. There were equalization funds that had to be apportioned to the producers of certain commodities in respect of the prices higher than our ceilings that they obtained on the quotas they were allowed to export. The exception in the restriction provided in the bill has to do with things of that kind. We were told that was the way to express it. It is not very elegant language, but that is the way we were told to express it if we wanted the Department of Justice to say that it would be successfully supported against any contestation.
The hon. member referred to an unidentified board. There is no board that could be identified at this time, and there will not be any board until there is something for the board to deal with. There are certain controllers who have been selected under the act which was passed at the special session, and who will probably be invited to continue as such under the Defence Production Act when it has been passed. If and when we do have to set up controls there certainly will have to be administrative machinery; but so far there is nothing in the mind of the government that could be disclosed to the committee as something that was going to be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Prime Minister a question with relation to the remarks he has just made? I think the Prime Minister will agree that the right of habeas corpus to the average individual is illusory unless he can be visited by counsel who will know the facts and draw the writ for him. Does the Prime Minister say that the inclusion of the word "arrest" and giving to the governor in council power to make orders and regulations with respect to arrest do not allow them to make orders and regulations with respect to restricting the right of counsel while under arrest?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would say, and I think my hon. friend would agree with me, that any interference whatsoever with the rights secured by the old habeas corpus statute would be invalid under a restriction which prevents an order in relation to detention. Any interference whatsoever with the procedure relating to detention would be illegal under this section.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? In case any drafting is being done during the dinner adjournment to embody the kind of amendment the Prime Minister suggested might be introduced in section 2, subsection 4, to include regulations

Emergency Powers Act as well as orders in council in the annulment provision, I would point out that the Prime Minister, as well as the Minister of Justice, used the expression, "regulations having legislative effect, or of the nature of legislation." May I say that the Regulations Act does not use any such expression. What it speaks of in the interpretation section, 2 (a), is this:
"regulation" means a rule, order, regulation, bylaw or proclamation
(i) made, in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament.
It seems to me it would be a mistake to qualify the word "regulation" if it were introduced into section 2, subsection 4, by any such expression as the one mentioned, namely, regulation "of a legislative nature" or "legislative character." That is not the language of the Regulations Act. It says:
Regulation . . . made, in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think it should be regulation in the sense of the Regulations Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If it was a regulation in the sense of the Regulations Act made under authority given by this bill, then it should be subject to the annulling provision that this bill contemplates. I think, therefore, that there should not be any uncertainty about that. We discussed it, and we came to the conclusion that we were going to take as a calculated risk the risk of publishing regulations as required by the Regulations Act. I do not think there could be any objection to having the power to annul extend to anything that we are required to publish under the Regulations Act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 1-Short title.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I expressed my views with respect to the bill before us when we were at the second reading stage, and I would not have felt it necessary to add anything of a general nature to those remarks but for the discussion that took place in this chamber this afternoon. But because of some of the things which were said and the attitude that was shown I feel I should say a little more at this time.
I take second place to no one in my concern for the rights and privileges, for the practices and procedures of democracy. I


think I have demonstrated in the nine years I have been in this -house my concern for the rights of parliament and for the responsibility of the government to parliament, both in the letter and in the spirit. I would say that one of the factors essential to parliamentary democracy is that there be an opposition. The government is conscious of its own importance in the affairs of state, but the opposition is equally important, and I use the word "equally" advisedly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: More important.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear the hon. member for Eglinton suggesting that in a sense the opposition is more important. At any rate the importance of the opposition in a democracy is beyond question. If ever a day is reached in this country, in this House of Commons, no matter what the emergency might be, when there is no voice of opposition to be heard, democracy will be in a bad way.
At the same time I think we on the opposition side are under the obligation to be consistent. We should oppose whenever there is something that we feel should be opposed. We should examine legislation in detail and find and ferret out any flaw we possibly can. We should call upon the government to come through with measures for the good of the country when we feel they are failing to come through with such measures. But I do not think,the opposition should just oppose for the sake of opposing.
What is the situation in this House of Commons, at least so far as hon. members are concerned, with respect to this- question of controls? Everyone knows that all who have been speaking about controls, except the ministers who have stalled for time, have been calling for controls. I could say that parliament has been hollering for controls. We have been calling upon the government to speed up with controls, particularly price control, so as to protect the health and the living standards of the Canadian people. We have done it on the floor of parliament, we have done it on the hustings, and only the other evening the leader of the opposition went on a national hook-up and made a strong plea for the imposition of controls. I believe he called upon his listeners to flood members of parliament with more postcards so that we could have behind us that much more weight with which to press this government to bring in controls.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Letters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Kamloops says that the leader of the opposition asked for letters, not postcards. Letters are just that much more weighty, and that seems

to be consistent with what the leader of the opposition wanted, namely weight behind our demand that the government bring in price control at the earliest possible date. Perhaps I should be careful because I am not sure that the leader of the opposition specifically said price control, but at least he was asking for controls.
If that is the case, that members of the opposition are now united in their demands for controls, I find it difficult to understand why we should spend so much time blocking the bill which is going to make it possible for the government to bring in controls. I think there are some things that are faulty in this bill and I am going to say a few words in a moment about one section which I think is still open to considerable improvement. But I hope earnestly that the government will not get the impression from the attitude shown here this afternoon by the Progressive Conservative opposition that there is not still a demand in the country, that there is not still a demand by members of parliament, with respect to this question of price control.
I hope that we can get some improvements in this bill, but it seems to me that the important thing is that a bill of this description should pass parliament and that the government should know that when the bill has been passed by parliament we want them to use the powers granted thereby to deal with the urgency of the rising cost of living. This afternoon at one point the leader of the opposition suggested that the Minister of Justice should send this bill back to the gentleman who drafted it and have it overhauled. He said that there was no urgency about the situation. Good heavens, if there is no urgency why did he make that appeal over the radio the other night?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure the hon. member
would not want to state what I am sure is not the fact. My recollection of my leader's statement is that he said that there appeared to be no sense of urgency on the part of the government and that therefore they could give themselves time to send this bill back and get us a better bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Urgency with respect to the enactment of the bill, not the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am perfectly prepared to
accept the correction; in fact I think the correction is well made. But if it is our job to get into the minds of the government a realization as to the urgency of the situation then I do not think the tactics this afternoon were designed to do that. The tactics this afternoon would have the effect of making the government feel that they can stall along 80709-52
Emergency Powers Act the way they have been doing because no great pressure was being put on them by the official opposition.
I want the government to know that so far as this section of the opposition is concerned we are still putting pressure on the government. They know that we have been doing that for the last six years. When they started to talk of taking price controls off back in 1945 we objected and indicated what the results would be. All during the years when decontrol was the motto of the government we objected and asked that controls be retained. When the cost of living began to get completely out of bounds we were right in there demanding the reimposition of controls.
The purpose of what I am saying now is to rectify if I can the impression which I felt was given to the government this afternoon, namely, that they need not worry too much about there being any sense of urgency so far as the question of controls is concerned. It is most urgent. The cost of living is still going up and people are literally getting frantic over this problem. I know, as do other members, from letters I am getting that people like old age pensioners who have been puzzled through the years as to how they were going to get by, are not now just puzzled, they are literally frantic as to how they are going to make both ends meet and keep body and soul together. Therefore I urge upon the government that they realize this is an urgent problem and, just as soon as the bill has been fixed up to the satisfaction of those of us who are suggesting a few reasonable changes, that they act upon it and do something about the rising cost of living.
I have said that we who are asking for controls cannot oppose the bill, but in line with what I said earlier as to the duty of the opposition I feel that we have to scan a measure of this kind very closely to make sure that it does not violate any of the principles of parliamentary democracy. One place where I feel the government could lean over backward to achieve that end is with respect to section 2, subsection 4, the clause which the Prime Minister indicated this afternoon the government is prepared to amend in part.
The suggestion made by the Prime Minister was that the kind of orders to be tabled under that part might include not merely orders in council but almost everything that can be called an order or regulation in any sense of the term. But the aspect of that clause that I want to speak about relates rather to the provision for parliament to annul any order that the government may have put into effect. May I make it clear that

Emergency Powers Act at this moment I am not so much concerned, speaking practically, with annulling orders as I am to get the government to pass some of these orders. However, the plain fact of the matter is that if we are going to perform our function as a parliament, particularly as opposition members of parliament, we have to retain the parliamentary way of doing things just as much as we possibly can, but if by passing this bill, which I want passed, we are going to give the government the power to pass orders of a far-reaching character I think we have got to retain in the hands of parliament as much power as is needed to annul these orders if parliament should wish to do so.
This afternoon the Minister of Justice in commenting on this matter said two things that were of interest to me. On the one hand he gave us the Prime Minister's assurance that, if a motion should be introduced seeking to annul a government order, the government wouldi see to it that consideration of such a motion would be facilitated. I think the words were to that effect; at least it was in that spirit. The other comment made by the Minister of Justice was that we in the opposition should not think that just because we were opposing something that made it wrong. He said that the majority has rights in this parliament too, and it is so obvious one cannot but agree with him.
But I ask the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to notice this difference with respect to the annulling of orders compared with the ordinary measures that go through parliament. Usually a bill or resolution or motion is introduced or initiated here in the house, and its passage is decided on the floor of parliament. In that circumstance we on the opposition side may differ with it but if the majority votes for it it becomes law. That is the rule of democracy. But in the case of these orders, although they may be passed by a government, a cabinet, that ostensibly has the confidence of the majority, there has not been a positive vote for them by the majority of the house. This is a case where the process is in reverse. The law is passed first by order in council and it becomes law. It is in effect. That having been done without a vote having been taken on the floor of parliament, it seems to me that special efforts should be made to make sure that if there is any substantial body of objection to it, full opportunity is provided for that objection to be expressed and for votes of the House of Commons and the other place to be taken.
I am not casting any doubts at all upon the assurance given this afternoon by the Prime Minister through the Minister of Justice. I am not suggesting it is going to happen but

prime ministers do change once in a while in the life of this country. People do come and go, and it is also the case that what really counts when we are dealing with laws, parliamentary and governmental matters, is the written word. I should like to see the Minister of Justice go back to the law officers of the crown and see if there is not some way in which subsection 4 of section 2 can be reworded so that it will contain right in its text provision as to how that annulment can be proceeded with on the floor of parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are you
sending it back to the justice department too?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would not take quite
so long as it would to make the complete change in the whole basis of the bill that the leader of the opposition was suggesting. It can be done while he is changing the same clause to meet the point made by the hon. member for Eglinton. I will write it for the minister myself. He does not need to go to the law officers of the crown. All he needs to do is to add a sentence to subsection 4 to the effect that such a motion can be considered by the House of Commons or by the Senate after forty-eight hours' notice under the heading of "motions" which appears on the routine proceedings part of the order paper.
The point that worries me-and I know that the government does not see this as we do from this side of the house-is that any attempt on the part of a private member to bring in a motion of annulment would result in its becoming a notice of motion. It would go into the class of notices of motions where private members' notices of motions go. It would then require the upsetting of the rules of the house by unanimous consent, by consent of the government if you will, for such a motion to be brought forward.
I recognize the assurance given in the name of the Prime Minister by the Minister of Justice this afternoon, tout I think both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice would feel happier about this if it were written right into the law. In other words, if I may say it again, if parliament is going to give to the government the very wide powers set out in section 2, subsection 1, powers which the Prime Minister admitted this afternoon are on the safe side, powers whereby the government say they can do anything that it might be necessary to do for the well-being of the country, I think we should retain as much control as possible in the hands of parliament over the government with respect to the use of these powers. I would say that the best way to do that is to have it clearly spelled out in the act that there is a way in which the matter can be dealt with on the floor of parliament.

If I may take a moment longer to spell it out, I think it should be possible for any private member of parliament to give notice in the usual way of a motion to annul an order in council or regulation, and notice having been given it should come up not under private members' notices of motions away at the back of the order paper but on the order for motions under routine proceedings on page 2, the kind of motion that normally deals with the proceedings and business of the house. Then there would be no question as to the possibility of such a matter being sidetracked. I feel that if we had that kind of guaranteed protection, that kind of provision written right into the law, it would take away a good deal of the sting that there is to parliament in being asked to grant the wide powers set out in section 2, subsection 1.
I hope the two things I am saying will not be portrayed by someone else as inconsistent. I think they go together. These are times of emergency; the situation is urgent. I think we have to give the government powers, and I want the government to use those powers to deal with the present critical situation. At the same time, however, we are a parliamentary democracy, and I want this parliament to retain as much control as possible over the government in the exercise of those powers.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: For the benefit of my hon. friend may I say that his suggestion is something we ourselves had considered. It would be convenient to have something of that kind; but the hon. gentleman is not only concerned about the powers of parliament, I am sure. He is also concerned about the respective powers of each of the houses of parliament. When the suggestion was put forward it was suggested to us that it would be a bad precedent to have parliament fix by law the rules of procedure of either of its houses. The standing orders in this house are fixed by this house, and in that regard we do not have to get the assent of the other place or the sanction of the third branch of parliament, the king's representative. It was suggested to us that while there might not be immediate objection to this, we would be creating a precedent by interfering by legislation with the privileges of one or both of the houses of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate that point. As a matter of fact when I was thinking the matter over here before six o'clock I pulled out from under my desk the Senate orders of the day to look over the situation there and see how it compared with the practice in our house, I appreciate the point the Prime Minister made about the rules which 80709-52i
Emergency Powers Act
govern our procedure and the procedure in the other place. The suggestion I made, which I am glad to learn has been given consideration by the government, does not alter those rules in any general way. It would just provide a special guarantee with respect to this particular act under which widie powers are being granted .to the government. If my suggestion were carried out and such a proposal were written into the subclause in question, it would have to relate to both houses and both houses would have to concur in it as far as this particular bill is concerned. Personally I do not think there would be any objection to that. I think it would be welcomed in the other place, as well as here, if we had that written assurance right in the act as to a way in which we would have the right to deal with such motions of annulment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am quite certain I speak
for all members on this side when I say we were impressed with the fact that in what he had to say this afternoon' the Minister of Justice obviously had given a good deal of careful consideration to the points raised in the debate on second reading. The fact that he should have considered them, and that in certain respects he and the Prime Minister should have made concessions or, to put it perhaps more mildly, indicated that they were prepared to share at least to some extent the views put forward by members on this side, encourages us to think that by making reasonable suggestions we can work out a bill which will be a great deal better than we consider this bill to be, at least in its present form.
For that reason, on the first clause I should like to deal with this bill in general for a few minutes, and particularly with some of the further points where we think there is room for accommodation, room for our views to be given effect ini order perhaps to have amendments made which will further improve the bill. Perhaps I should indicate the approach we take to this matter so the minister will understand the basis for the request we make for a further limitation in the statute on the extent to which these powers may be exercised. It seemed to me that in what he had to say this afternoon the Prime Minister based his case, in asking for our consent to the granting of powers which he admitted were .wider than at the moment they could say would have to be used, upon the principle that in a time like this parliament should say to the government, "Very well. We will surrender to you all the powers you ask in spite of the fact that at the moment those powers may be wider than you can justify."

Emergency Powers Act
I take a rather different approach to that question. We are agreed that the times are extremely serious and urgent, and that there is an emergency. This emergency has not yet been narrowly defined. It is an emergency, however, which calls upon us to grant emergency powers, and that is a departure from the normal. The normal procedure is that laws interfering with the liberty of the subject, laws taking away from the individual rights we have won over the centuries, can be passed only by the representatives of the people, that is by the parliament of Canada. That is where the residue of power lies as between the cabinet and parliament; and I do not believe we should be asked to surrender powers beyond the actual requirements of the moment. When a case is made out I believe we should surrender now those powers required; we should agree with the government that they must take those powers, and we should place no obstacles in the way. But I do view with grave misgivings any assertion of a principle which seems to me, at any rate, to imply that the government is entitled by the mere fact that there is an emergency to ask for and receive powers which the government itself admits go beyond what can be justified at the moment.
I trust the minister will appreciate that we hold this view in all sincerity; and I think he will understand why we say, no specific case having been made out to show to what extent these powers are required or are going to be used, we believe we should seek to limit this bill, to limit those discretionary powers which normally belong to parliament, to the extent to which you and we can agree it is absolutely necessary to grant them now. Having been successful in writing in those limitations, if the government then should meet a situation in which they need more powers, I am convinced that they have only to make out that case and the necessary further powers will be willingly granted.
The first and most important limitation that occurs to me as being necessary in this bill is a limitation protecting the traditional right of the individual to have recourse to the courts. We can find instances where, though the intention to interfere with the liberty of the individual in that respect is not written into the statute, nevertheless that power has been given in words very, similar to those which have been used to effectively deny the right of action on the part of an ordinary man or woman in Canada who is aggrieved by the act of some controller in the exercise of these powers. I do not mean just put out, or to suffer some imaginary loss, but someone who is actually injured by an excess of authority on the part of a controller appointed under

a regulation or order in council passed pursuant to emergency legislation. There was a clause in the order in council setting up the wartime prices and trade board, and this was a type of order which was repeated a number of times throughout the years, providing that no member of the board and no administrator acting on behalf or under authority of the board shall be or become liable to any person in respect of any act or omission of himself or any other person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power, discretion, or authority, or in the performance or purported performance of any duty conferred or imposed under these regulations or under regulations for which these regulations are substituted, or otherwise conferred or imposed by order in council. A provision of that sort, Mr. Chairman, effectively denies the right of an individual to have recourse to the courts.
I am not talking here about powers that may be taken to control industry, to limit profits or anything of that sort that affects big industry. I am talking about the ordinary man and woman, because if these powers are exercised to the full extent the regulations made do not just affect the big fellow, they affect the ordinary man and woman of Canada, who is perhaps more vitally concerned than anyone else in the preservation of the right to have recourse to the courts. If the right to question in the courts any action or omission on the part of a controller is lost, then one of the fundamental freedoms enjoyed in this country has been lost. We are now being asked to surrender into the hands of the government very sweeping powers. There are only limited opportunities for parliament to question the exercise of those powers by the government. There is one institution open to the ordinary man and woman, an institution which is normally, along with parliament, the custodian of the liberty of the individual; one institution which has traditionally enjoyed independence, and to which the ordinary man and woman has always been free to go in order to assert and protect his or her rights, and that is to the courts.
What we are doing here, if we give powers to make such regulations as the one I have just read, is to remove that other safeguard on the freedoms and rights of the people, a traditional safeguard under our system, by refusing to allow an individual to appeal to that institution. I certainly feel that before this bill passes there should be written into it, not any provision which will prevent the government from taking such action as it needs to control whatever it needs to control, but a provision which will prevent it

from passing such orders in council or regulations as will needlessly and dangerously interfere with the liberty of the individual by taking away his ordinary right of recourse to the courts.
Then I feel there should also be a provision in this act which would restrict the right of the government to pass an order in council denying the right of any individual to be represented by counsel when he is accused of some offence against an order or regulation. The reason I say that, Mr. Chairman, and I ask you to bear with me for just a moment, is not that I am anxious to protect the rights of lawyers. In this country we have seen cases of this in connection with the right of habeas corpus, that right which affords an individual an opportunity to protest against unjust and unlawful arrest or detention. We have seen instances in which, without actually indicating or providing in express words that the right of habeas corpus was no longer to be exercised, it has been effectually removed by the simple provision that the person arrested shall not have the right to be represented by counsel. It is not of much use to the ordinary man, who may find himself innocently or unsuspectingly up against some provision of these regulations which he did not know about, to say to him that the right of habeas corpus has not been suspended. As the Prime Minister has admitted, even the government can make mistakes. If the government can make mistakes, then certainly the controllers appointed by the government can make mistakes. It is quite possible that some innocent man or woman may find themselves under arrest as a result of an action or omission mistakenly taken by one of the controllers.
Under those circumstances that man or woman would be most anxious to exercise the right of habeas corpus. The Prime Minister has said that under this measure the right of habeas corpus cannot be taken away. Mr. Chairman, I have seen examples of the right of habeas corpus being taken away by the simple expedient of denying the individual the right to be represented by counsel. It is not very much help to an individual to be told, "Oh, no, you have not lost your right to habeas corpus," when that person has no idea how to exercise the right and the one person who can tell him how to exercise it and take steps to exercise it is not allowed to interview him. It does not prevent the government from exercising the controls it needs to exercise, but I feel it is absolutely essential that we should protect the right of the individual from wrongful acts or omissions, and the consequences of those wrongful acts or omissions, by ensuring to him that the agency through which he exercises that right, the
Emergency Powers Act counsel of his choice, may not be denied to him. That principle can be written into this bill without derogating from any of the powers which the government wishes to take.
I believe that at this point I can call to my support an address given in this city on Tuesday by a person who, I presume, has the admiration and respect, if not the confidence because he is not in a government position, of the members on the government side of this house. Certainly, he was asked by that party to address them at their annual meeting just concluded. Professor Corry delivered an address in which he asserted the principles which support the stand I am taking. I shall read from pages 12 and 13 of the official text of his address, where he said:
Second, when the government regulates the varied activities of millions of people in detail, it is not humanly possible for a few cabinet ministers and members of parliament unaided to prevent the oppressive operation of rules and regulations. Third, the wider the powers of government are over a long period, the more government attracts men who like to exercise that range of power.
I do not know who was in the audience, or upon whom he had his eye at that time. I simply remind you that he was addressing an audience of Liberals in this city, an audience whose members constitute the government. He went on to say:
While we may feel quite secure in the hands of our rulers today, we can have no such assurance for the future. So it is vitally important to look to the safeguards of individual freedom.
This parliament has long been the prime safeguard of individual freedom and it will continue to be as long as it can insist, as it has in the past, on maintaining its right to pass laws having an effect on individual freedom. But there is that other body which has been the safeguard of freedom, namely the courts. I most earnestly urge that now, at a time when this parliament is being invited to surrender-and to a large extent at any rate is prepared to do so-its powers, carrying with it a surrender of its function of being the protector of the individual, we should look to it that we leave in existence the right of the individual to have recourse to that other protector of his freedom, namely, the courts.
That can be done quite easily by a simple amendment to section 2 which I think should be moved, and which we propose to move if it should be found that the minister does not feel, and does not indicate at this time that he feels, that some such safeguards as those that I have referred to can be written into this legislation. I have discussed this matter under clause 1 because, in the same spirit which the minister showed this afternoon, I want to lay the suggestions before him and obtain his view as to whether it is possible

Emergency Powers Act to incorporate them into the provision of the statute rather than to move out of hand an amendment-and after all, we are limited; we have not the expert draftsmen the minister has in the department-which in some particular may have some flaw and which, as a result, may not be found to be acceptable. It would be preferable if the minister and the government would indicate that they are prepared1, if they are, to incorporate some such amendment in order to save us reaching an impasse over an amendment which we might move. I think it is also proper to say that we regard this principle as of such importance that we are prepared to move an amendment unless the government can accommodate us in that respect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I intend
neither to repeat the remarks I made on second reading of this bill on February 23, nor to anticipate some remarks I may have occasion to make during the detailed consideration of some of the clauses of the bill at a later stage. I should like, however, to take advantage of what may be the final opportunity to say in general terms that 1 for one deplore this type of legislation. Before we leave this bill I hope the House of Commons will have realized just how far it is going in committing to the hands of the cabinet virtually all the sovereign legislative powers possessed by this parliament. The exceptions to or limitations on that gift of absolute sovereign power are extremely narrow indeed. They are confined to the provisions-and quite limited ones-of one subsection of the bill.
For my part, I cannot justify the transfer to the governor in council of virtually absolute powers by parliament. We were prepared, as I think were all members in the house, to recognize that the existence of a national emergency calls for the giving to the government of certain extraordinary powers that may be required to meet situations that may confront us suddenly, before parliament may have time to act, or that may arise at a time when parliament may not be in session. But that is an altogether different matter from accepting from the government an invitation to place in its hands virtually all the sovereign powers possessed by parliament.
I have been free to approach this subject with what seems to me due regard for the duty and responsibility of this parliament, namely, to make certain that we do not barter away these fundamental, constitutional safeguards of which parliament has traditionally been the champion. I hold firmly to


the view that when parliament makes transfers of vast areas of its powers to the government, it is in effect placing in jeopardy not only the continuation of our freedom but indeed the whole future of our parliamentary institutions. That is why I for one make no apology whatever for having laid so much stress during this debate on the maintenance of as many safeguards as parliament can write into this bill.
I may say here that I received with no little gratification the expressions that came from the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister this afternoon of their willingness to consider some of the concrete suggestions that were made by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops, and myself last Friday evening in connection with specific defects in the bill. One is glad to see, on the part of the ministers to whom I have referred, an indication of some willingness to give serious consideration to proposals that are seriously put forward, based upon an earnest attempt to study the bill and to appreciate its significance.
The ministers in question have also indicated their willingness to make, certain changes in the bill, and we shall look forward at a later stage to seeing those changes made as well as others too, I hope; because there are many safeguards that need to be written into this bill, apart from the several as to which the Prime Minister indicated this afternoon that he was prepared to entertain amendments to the bill. But even with all those safeguards and many more, parliament is faced with what should be, to the majority in this chamber as well as to the minority sitting in the opposition, a most distasteful invitation to transfer to the governor in council, with few exceptions, the sovereign powers of parliament. I do not believe that that is the kind of method that will commend itself to others who are watching what is happening in democratic assemblies today as proof that democratic methods are equal to national emergencies and to the stress of grave international situations. The fact that parliament is in session makes it all the more unnecessary, it seems to me, that powers so sweeping should be taken from parliament by the government.
The hon. member for Kamloops quoted an extract from the quite notable speech made in this city two days ago by Professor Corry, the head of the department of political science.at Queen's university, when addressing the Liberal convention in this city. To the extract read by my hon. friend may I add the following passage which, it seems to me, contains words of sound and timely

warning to those to whom the professor particularly directed his remarks, namely the representatives of the Liberal party gathered in assembly. He went on to say:
Since we cannot at present see any prospect of decreasing the powers of government, our most hopeful course is to look for more effective methods of control. As we put large funds and much ingenuity into enabling the government to control us more effectively, we should put some thought and expenditure into new and better ways of ensuring the responsibility of government to parliament and the people. If, as seems likely, we are to have a considerable measure of order-in-council government again, we should also be considering seriously the establishment of one or more committees of parliament to examine, not the substance and policy of orders in council but the effect that the powers and procedures contained in them will have on individual rights and freedoms.
May I interject there, sir, that there are two factors, each of them of ithe most vital importance to everyone who enjoys the benefit of the traditions and the institutions that we possess, two things that go hand in hand, that have historically gone hand in hand, the one the handmaid of the other. The first is the supremacy of parliament; the second, the freedom of the individual under the rule of law. It seems to me that in vesting in the governor in council powers so drastic as are contained in this bill we are placing both of those fundamentals to our freedom in j eopardy.
Professor Corry continued:
We should also be studying how to maintain the influence of parliament over policy and administration. As things now stand, the government is always adopting some new measures of great complexity and administering many old measures of great complexity. For explaining to parliament the success of the old measures and the reasons for the new ones, the government has the assistance of a numerous, able and expert civil service. The opposition is expected to criticize policy and administration effectively without any comparable expert assistance. Members of the majority party in the house are not supposed to oppose the government but they are entitled to influence both policy and administration, and they are expected to explain the government's policy to the country at large. More than ever in the future, the government will need to explain its complex policies to the electorate if it is to get the necessary co-operation. The members of the majority party also need expert assistance which they cannot get from the civil service if they are to exercise their legitimate influence on the government and put the government's case effectively before the country.
We should be considering whether the position and prestige of parliament can be maintained unless each political party is equipped with a secretariat which can then give its party an independent and informed view of government policy and administration. It is difficult to see any other way of restoring the balance that used to exist between government and parliament when governmental policies were few and simple and easily understood by the private member. The biggest objection I see to the proposal is that it increases the number of experts
Emergency Powers Act who find employment, but that is inevitable anyway, and they had better be employed by the responsible political parties than by someone else.
Finally, whatever we might find it expedient to do about these suggested devices, we must be vigilant to protect the right of protest and of individual criticism.
Now, sir, I do not need to go over ground with which those of us who sat in the last parliament are very familiar. Order in council government has been criticized on almost every point. It has been criticized for its secrecy and for the fact that there is no opportunity such as is ensured in the operation of parliament, sitting in public, to bring to bear the full weight of public opinion on questions which are awaiting decision by the legislating body.
We have seen examples of great injustice done during these recent years. We have seen occasions where the power and supremacy of parliament were set at nought. We have seen occasions where the responsibility which the cabinet owes to parliament was set at nought simply because the government possessed, under what was virtually an abdication of parliament in its favour, vast powers.
We cannot, without placing in jeopardy our freedoms and these institutions that we, as members of parliament, are sworn to uphold and maintain, risk the kind of action that may well be taken under a bill of this kind, if powers so vast as these are committed to the keeping of a score of men. Notwithstanding whatever members of parliament may say by way of expression of confidence or lack of confidence in that score of men who hold the seats on the treasury benches, the fact remains that there is something so utterly repugnant to the spirit of parliamentary institutions in literally transferring virtually all of parliament's absolute and sovereign powers to a small group of men that I say, Mr. Speaker, faced with anything short of immediate and compelling necessity, there can be no justification for the vesting of powers as absolute as these in the government; above all, at a time when parliament is in session, and is certain to be in session for some months to come.
What I have said, sir, about the need of adding enough safeguards will be developed, I hope, as we come to the detailed provisions of the bill, but with all the attempts that we may make here, whether successful or unsuccessful, to attach additional safeguards to the control parliament may seek to lay down in this measure, the fact remains, and is inescapable, that parliament ought not to be vesting powers as sweeping as these in the government.

Emergency Powers Act
I have not joined1 with some hon. members in vociferously demanding that the government take wide powers, and exercise wide powers. I want to make that very clear. My great concern in this debate has been to seek, as far as one may, to preserve for parliament the essence of parliamentary freedoms and parliamentary institutions, which, it seems to me, parliament is placing in jeopardy by enacting a measure of this kind. I urge on the-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? I am afraid I did not catch what he was urging. Was it that he was not in favour of taking these wide powers and exercising them at once?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; what I said was, I wanted to make it quite clear that I was not one of those who have been demanding that the government take wide powers and exercise wide powers. My concern was-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member is in disagreement with1 his colleagues, then?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Wait a minute. My colleagues, I think, have been very loud in their insistent demands that the supremacy of parliament should be maintained, and that parliament should not be asked by the government to confer on the cabinet sweeping and undefined powers of the kind contemplated in this measure. What we have all said was that we acknowledge the existence of an emergency, and we are prepared to see powers given commensurate with the existence of the emergency conferred on the government; but that is no justification for the government making a demand on parliament that parliament virtually transfer to the government almost all the sovereign powers that are vested in parliament by the constitution. That is the point that I want to make as clear as it is in my power to make it. That is more important, it seems to me, than some of the other subsidiary questions that have obtruded themselves into this debate.
Whatever may be said about using powers in any particular way or for any purpose- because we can have wide areas of disagreement as to details of that kind, even though we may talk in ways that indicate superficial agreement-the essential point is that parliament at a time like this should address itself to its responsibilities to stand firm for the preservation of that which we conceive to be essential in democracy, namely, the preservation of parliamentary institutions and the safeguarding of the supremacy of parliament and responsible government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 2-Governor in council powers.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it might expedite
matters if you would call section 2 by its individual subsections.


The Chairman:: Subsection 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask where the government feels that there is contained in this subsection stand-by powers for the imposition of price controls or the setting up of that analogue of the wartime prices and trade board to which the Minister of Justice referred so often this afternoon.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The subsection reads:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that the stand-by power to bring in price controls is not contained in any one of the paragraphs lettered (a); to (f), but rather in the broad general power covered by the words, "the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada" to which the minister has just referred.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The courts have held in a number of decisions that enumerated powers are merely illustrative of the general overriding power that is contained in the language I have just read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A moment ago the Minister of Justice tried to ask the hon. member for Eglinton a question in order to ascertain just where he stood with regard to giving powers to the government and the government exercising those powers. I think it is only fair that I should ask the Minister of Justice a question. It is pretty clear that he favours asking parliament to give these powers to the government because he is supporting the bill; but does he favour the government exercising those powers with respect to the rising cost of living?	*


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course he does.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As the occasion arises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the government
realizes that this is a pretty serious matter as far as members of parliament and the country are concerned, and I do think that the stalling has gone on long enough. I think I made it clear a few moments ago where I stood with respect to the bill. I am anxious to see it get through because I do not think the country should be asked to wait indefinitely for some action under this bill in order to deal with the rising cost of living.

During the last few days certain reports have appeared in the newspapers which have interested me. I have not the newspapers before me so I shall have to refer to the reports from memory. If I misquote them, the ministers concerned can correct me. I believe the Prime Minister was quoted as having said last night to a meeting of a certain group of people here in Ottawa that it was not the government's intention at the present time to go into the field of price controls. On the other hand, a day or two ago I read that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said in Chicago that Canada would have to go in for commodity controls on all war commodities. I think I am stating correctly what the newspapers said.


Mr. Howe:: It is not what the minister
said, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister would tell us what he did say.


An hon. Member:: He has forgotten.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not my notes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If there has been one thing we have been sure of about the minister during all the years we have known him, it is his memory.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I suggest to the hon.
member that he could do more to make price controls possible in this country than perhaps anyone if he could get his various trade union friends to say that they would back it for two years, that is, a freeze of wages and prices. There is a challenge for him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that the only reason you do not bring them in?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister wish to answer that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not hear that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I asked the minister if that is the reason why they do not bring them in now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is one of the reasons, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute, now. Let me tell the minister that not many days ago, in fact on the day that the resolution preceding this bill was introduced, February 20, a delegation waited upon the Prime Minister. I am not sure at the moment whether other ministers were there as well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The delegation also made it clear that they were asking for price control but not wage control.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute; I am afraid your memory is failing.


An hon. Member:: It is getting better.
Emergency Powers Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: The delegation that waited on the government on February 20 represented four of the major labour organizations in this country: the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour and the dominion joint legislative committee of the railway transportation brotherhoods. That brief called for price controls and the retention of rent controls. But paragraph 23 of the document which they presented to the government read as follows:
The labour movement recognizes that wages could go up fast enough and far enough to break a price ceiling, though it sees no immediate danger of anything of the sort. It believes that the proper way to deal with this question is a government-labour-management conference to work out methods of wage stabilization.
This offers a prospect of a wage policy which will do two things, both essential (a) preserve the spirit, the principle, of collective bargaining, and (b) bring the experience of labour and management into the defence effort. If our government institutes a general policy of price and production controls, labour is ready to take part in a joint govemment-labour-management conference to consider wage stabilization.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It does not say anything about wage freeze, does it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will answer that, but first of all I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that that is a challenge to the government by the people whom I am glad the minister calls my friends, the labour movement of this country, who waited on the government on February 20. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that that does not say anything about a wage freeze. I am surprised that the Minister of Trade and Commerce uses the word "freeze". Surely he remembers all the arguments we had during the last war over the wage control order when the whole problem was to keep it a wage control order and not a wage freezing order. There is a wide difference. Of course labour does not want a wage freeze any more than business wants a price freeze. Price control in the last war was not a price freezing proposition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Pretty well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was a matter of controlling wages and prices and keeping them in some sort of balance. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the reason labour has resisted wage control in the present situation is because prices have got completely out of hand in relation to wages. Many workers feel, and justifiably so, that their wages are already frozen, and that the next step is to do something about price control. I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the government that labour representatives, as

Emergency Powers Act represented by the four bodies to whom I have referred, are taking a very serious and responsible attitude towards this problem. The Minister of Trade and Commerce throws out a challenge but they have thrown out a challenge to the government in paragraph 23 of the submission made to the Prime Minister on February 20. I take it from the exchanges between the hon. member for Kamloops and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that that is put forward by the government as one of the basic stumbling blocks.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: He didn't say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government and management should sit down with labour, work out an acceptable policy and get on with the job. Labour is ready; it is the government that is stalling.
Subsection 1 of section 2 agreed to.
On subsection 2 of section 2-Powers restricted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton:
That clause 2 (a) of section 2 of bill 24 be amended by inserting the word "arrest" immediately before the word "detention."
The reason for this amendment is that, notwithstanding what was said this afternoon by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, with respect, if I may say so, we were not by any means convinced by their argument. If I recall rightly the Minister of Justice said that this power on the part of the governor in council to make orders and regulations regarding arrest would in effect give them no more than what was frequently done under provincial legislation where power is given to the administrative authorities to make orders and regulations which the minister stated carried with them power to make orders regarding arrest.
The minister said then he was quite certain many provincial statutes incorporated such provisions. I do not know whether during the dinner recess he has been able to get an example of what he had in mind but I have not been able to think of any such example in provincial legislation. I think particularly of the type of legislation where regulations are made, the provincial liquor acts, where power is given to make regulations regarding the administration of the act. Certainly so far as I know it is not the case that power is given to prescribe offences or to prescribe the method under which punishment will be meted out. There are administrative regulations as to the enforcement of the act, yes, but not regulations prescribing offences, penalties and the enforcement of penalties. Certainly an order in council prescribing arrest would, it seems to me, be an order in council 
or regulation enacting what could properly be enacted only by legislation, and that is punishment or a step invoking punishment which follows from a breach of the order or regulation.
I am not aware of any case where under any statute, under any ordinary legislative process, power is reserved to executive officials either to prescribe penalties or to prescribe the method by which those penalties shall be enforced. As a rule that is part of the legislation itself. If the government wishes to write into the bill before the house the power .of arrest, if they think that is the answer, that would be one thing, and perhaps a case could be made out for putting it in at this time. But I do not think they should ask us to write into the legislation a power which will enable the government by order in council to provide under what circumstances and how a person shall be arrested. There is the Criminal Code for punishing people who are guilty of crimes or guilty of breaches of statutes. To my mind at any rate, nothing that has been said so far justifies asking at this, time for power to make orders in council providing for the arrest of somebody who may be guilty of a breach of an order or regulation subsequently made under the provisions of this' bill. In keeping with what was said earlier as to the necessity of safeguarding the rights of the individual, so that it can. be done, as it can, without interfering in substance with the powers which the government is asking, I submit this amendment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, if my hon.
friend will look at section 3, subsection I, of the bill he will see that it reads:
The governor in council may prescribe penalties by way of fine or by way of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or by way of both fine and such imprisonment, that may be imposed for violation of orders or regulations made under this act and may also prescribe whether, and the circumstances in which, the said penalties shall be imposed upon summary conviction or indictment.
This provision corresponds very largely to what was formerly contained in the War Measures Act. With all deference to the remarks that my hon. friend has just made,
I still submit that the power of arrest is quite consistent with the enforcement of the regulations that might be made under section 3.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, when this
matter was touched on in debate this afternoon it proceeded almost entirely on the basis of its being a question whether or not habeas corpus was at stake. I do not put my argument with respect to the amendment on that basis at all. Looking at the provisions of the section, it is quite apparent that the government, having deliberately omitted the

word "arrest" from the language of subsection 2 (a) of section 2 of the bill, proposes to take the power to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest. The government is prepared to forgo any request for power to make orders and regulations in relation to detention, exclusion or deportation of any person, but not in relation to arrest.
Under this bill the government does not need the power to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest in order to possess ample power to seek the imposition of penalties prescribed by the act on those who offend the terms of such orders and regulations. There is all the power under section 3, subsection 1, of the bill that is required for the prescription of penalties by way of fine or imprisonment, and for the enforcement of those penalties in any proceedings that may be taken arising out of a breach of any order or regulation passed under the authority of this act. So it is abundantly clear that the government does not require power to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest in order to carry out the enforcement of any order or regulation passed under the act, or to seek by due process of law the punishment of any individual, whether by fine or imprisonment as may be prescribed, who is convicted of any breach of any order or regulation. Therefore it seems to me that the expressed desire of the governor in council to retain power to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest is proved to be utterly unnecessary.
It is father strange that the government seeks this power to make orders or regulations in relation to arrest, but stops short of seeking such power in relation to detention. The argument does not hold water for one minute that the government requires the power to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest in order that arrest may be carried out in cases where it is required in the enforcement of orders and regulations issued under the act. There is the Criminal Code to deal with all cases in which arrest is required. Nothing here takes anything away from the effect of the code or any other statute of this parliament. Therefore, sir, no power to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest being necessary for the enforcement of any order or regulation under .this act, and since the power to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest is capable of abuse-though I am not suggesting the government intends to abuse it but am merely pointing out that power so sweeping and so vital in relation to the freedom enjoyed by every individual in this country is capable of abuse-it seems to me that parliament has no right whatever under present conditions
Emergency Powers Act to vest in the governor in council a power which is at the same time both dangerous and unnecessary.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no desire whatever to have any arrest other than the arrest that would be incidental to proceedings under section 3. The hon. gentleman says there is no difference between arrest and detention or any other order. I submit there is. If after an arrest there is a trial and a sentence, the detention under that sentence would not be a detention under an order made by virtue of this statute. That detention would be by virtue of a sentence imposed by a court of justice. If there is the broad statement that there cannot be anything with relation to arrest resulting from orders under this statute there could be a serious doubt as to whether the initial proceeding by way of arrest could be instituted. The Minister of Justice suggests that instead of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops there might be added at the end the words, "detention, exclusion or deportation of any person or arrest for any such purpose". That would not be objectionable. But if the word "arrest" is inserted as suggested in the amendment then there would have to be some qualification providing that it does not exclude the initiation of proceedings instituted by arrest under section 3.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the Prime Minister for his suggestion. Would it not be preferable, however, and perhaps clearer to those who are going to be called upon to interpret or enforce this legislation, to provide that the arrest which is permitted shall be an arrest in the course of proceedings under section 3?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is all that is required, but it must be expressed in such a way as to be quite clear that that can be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Should not the amendment be to the effect that words like these be inserted: "arrest except in the course of proceedings taken under section 3 hereof, detention, exclusion or deportation".


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Any language that will make it clear that there will not be arrest otherwise than in the course of proceedings taken for violation of some of the regulations made thereunder is all that is required. But I think it will be advisable to have something in the bill if arrest is excluded, as it would be under the hon. member's amendment. Something will be required to make it clear that this does not exclude the institution of proceedings commencing by arrest.

Emergency Powers Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think we all recognize that the enforcement of the provisions of a great many orders and regulations will involve arrest, and I do not think anything said by either my colleague from Kamloops or myself has been intended to exclude provision for arrest in proper cases in the course of enforcement. If a suitable amendment confining the powers to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest were written into this bill, I think it might meet the objection. Perhaps in the meantime this subclause could stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before we leave the point
I wonder if I might ask my hon. friends a question. Is not the arrest they are interested in doing away with under this bill an arrest which is an adjunct to detention, deportation and the like; that is, an executive arrest? As I understand it they are quite agreeable to an arrest which is an adjunct to the enforcement of any regulations under the bill. If that is the case I am quite satisfied to leave this section and obtain an opinion on it. Indeed, I have received that opinion and it is to the effect that the amendment of paragraph 2(a) by adding the words, "or arrest for any such purposes" after the words "detention, exclusion or deportation of any person" would meet my hon. friend's position.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the question was directed to me, I do not think it would meet our objection. It is too narrow. The case.the Prime Minister has made out for retaining the right to make orders and regulations in relation to arrest is intended simply to facilitate and be in the course of enforcement as provided by section 3 (1); and that, it seems to me, is the proper limitation that should be written into the bill now.


Mr. Hees:: A few moments ago, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was expressing the view that price control should be brought in as soon as possible, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested that the greatest contribution he could make toward bringing in price control would be to persuade the unions to agree to have wage control brought in at the same time. From that is it fair to assume that if the labour unions did agree to have wage control brought in hand in hand with price control the government would consider bringing in price control as soon as the machinery to handle it could be set in motion? Could I have an answer from the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce to that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that a hypothetical question?


George Harris Hees: No, it is a practical question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is a hypothetical question.


George Harris Hees: I am asking a question having
to do with something the right hon. minister said on this matter. I put the question again. The right hon. minister said that the greatest contribution the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could make toward bringing in price control would be to persuade the unions to agree to having wage control brought in at the same time. If these unions would agree, and I have very good reason to believe that they would, then would it be the government's policy to bring in price control as soon as the machinery to set it up could be put in motion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I very much doubt whether
my hon. friend is in a position to make that offer, but when he is in a position to make that offer I will tell him the answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on subsection
2,	paragraph (a), we have now had the benefit of the opinion of probably the most prominent lawyer in the country. I do not embarrass him by any attempt to say whether he is the most learned, but I think by virtue of his position everyone will agree he is the most prominent. The Prime Minister has indicated it would be acceptable to the government if my amendment were withdrawn, and another amendment submitted in the following form. By leave of the committee, I should like to withdraw my amendment and move in its place, seconded by the member for Eglinton, the following:
That clause 2 (a) of section 2 of Bill 24 be amended by inserting immediately before the word "detention" the words "arrest (except as incidental to proceedings under section 3) ".


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Has the member for Kamloops leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment to clause 2 (a) just moved by the member for Kamloops carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you leave subsection 2, I should like to ask a question about subsection 2 paragraph (c). Before I do that, however, may I just make one remark about the altercation between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the member for Broadview. The minister suggested that the question put to him by the member for Broadview was hypothetical. The terms of paragraph 23, which I read a few minutes ago, from the submission made by labour are very definite. If there is any challenge being thrown out, it is labour that is challenging the government to quit stalling.

Emergency Powers Act
I should like to say something about sub- power which is taken would permit, if any section 2, paragraph (c), but my hon. friend governor in council were so advised, the wants to say a word about subsection 2, passing of orders and regulations which paragraph (b). Which one of us do you want would have as their effect the control of the to hear?	free expression of opinion.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: We will hear the member on subsection 2, paragraph (b).


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one thing about 2 (b) that causes me some difficulty. It purports to except from those matters on which power is given to the governor in council to make orders and regulations, the following: censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings;
Now, sir, I point out that this deals only with written matter. This provision would not reserve from the power sought by the governor in council the suppression of opinion orally expressed. It seems to me that for this purpose there is no valid distinction between the suppression of opinions in written form and the suppression of opinions in oral form. In principle, they are the same. There is no higher case for giving to the government the power to make orders and regulations that might have the effect of suppressing opinion that is orally expressed than there is in the case of suppression of opinions in publications and writings.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move, seconded by the member for Kamloops:
That clause 2(b) of section 2 of Bill 24 be amended by the insertion of the words "or the expression of opinion" after the word "writings" in line 28.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Censorship applies to any form. You cannot suppress an oral expression after it has been orally expressed. It has been expressed, so you just cannot suppress it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, the Prime Minister has not covered all the words in the clause. The full language is "censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings". Now this isi intended to be a limitation on the power to make orders and regulations. Leave out the word "control" for the moment, and just deal with the word "suppression". Surely, if this passes within the power of the governor in council, it lies within its power to make orders and regulations in relation to the suppression of oral opinions. In other words, he can pass orders and regulations which would have as their effect the suppression of opinions orally expressed or intended to be orally expressed.
Quite apart from that, there is this word "control". It speaks of the "control and suppression of publications and writings." Surely, it cannot be argued that if this section is allowed to pass in its present form the
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question with regard to 2 (c)? Why are the words "otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament" necessary at all? Is it not always the case that the government has power to expend moneys in accordance with appropriation by parliament? It seems to me that the only thing you are indicating here is a prohibition against the expenditure of moneys under this act by order in council, with the one exception of moneys that you might have to expend in pursuance of any system of controls or regulations. My question is, why are those words "otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament" necessary at all?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If parliament appropriated moneys, the orders might determine the fashion in which their expenditure would be carried out. Here we wish to make it clear that there were not going to be any powers to expend public money that parliament had not appropriated, except such equalization funds as might result from the administration of a control.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then is it the government's thought that there might be an order other than an order setting up a scheme of control, which would involve the expenditure of money but that that money would have to be appropriated by parliament?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there was appropriated by parliament a subsidy on a certain commodity, the order might have to determine the administrative machinery for the distributing of that subsidy. As an example, during the last war there was a subsidy appropriated by parliament to enable wheat to be sold by the wheat board at 78 cents a bushel for consumption in Canada whilst the wheat board was to receive the price that was fixed by the ceiling either for exports or for some other specific purpose. There were regulations established to determine what kind of evidence the one receiving any subsidy would have to provide. This provision was inserted to make it clear that there could not be, by order in council, provision made for the expenditure of money that had not been provided by parliament or that did not result from the operation of an equalization fund or something of that kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not see that it is necessary, but I have no objection to it.

Emergency Powers Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I still have. I cannot blame the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for hitting upon a sound idea once in a while. In this particular case it seems to me that he he was on sound ground and that he should not back away from it.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: If hon. members wish paragraph (c) excluded or deleted-it was put there with the intention of its being a protection of the control of parliament-there will be no objection to deleting it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not asking for the exclusion of those words in clause 2(c) which have the effect attached to them by the Prime Minister, namely the preservation of the control of parliament over the expenditure of moneys voted by parliament. But I am taking objection to those words in clause 2(c) which have the opposite effect, namely, to make an exception from and against that salutary provision. It seems to me that we shall have accomplished the laudable purpose which is described by the Prime Minister, of seeking to do all 'that we can to buttress and to strengthen the controls to be exercised by parliament over the expenditure of public moneys, if we omit all the words after the word "parliament" in the thirtieth line. Let me say to the Prime Minister-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was not my idea.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Therefore I say to my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that that is the limitation on the good idea that I thought he had.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would spoil any chance of price controls or subsidies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it would not; not at all. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has, I think, quite missed the point here. Here you are introducing a limitation on the control which parliament, and parliament alone, will exercise with respect to the expenditure of moneys under this clause. In appropriating moneys for any purpose, parliament is quite competent to lay down whatever procedure is required. If the type of regulation which the Prime Minister has just indicated might be necessary commends itself to parliament at that time as being necessary, parliament can do all that is required in appropriating moneys, as is its proper function.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this clause will accomplish its purpose if it stops at the end of the word "parliament".


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall paragraph 2(c) carry?
Subsection 2 of section 2 agreed to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you come to subsection 3, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to


move which would involve the insertion of a clause between subsections 2 and 3. The purpose of this amendment is to attempt to write into the bill a clause which would preserve the rule of law and make it impossible for the governor in council, by order in council or regulation, to abrogate that principle. In the course of my general remarks on clause 1 I indicated to the minister that we, realizing our limitations as draftsmen, would much prefer it if the minister felt that he could accommodate us to some extent and would so indicate and say whether the government itself would be prepared to consider such an amendment in order to save us the necessity of moving one, which immediately creates an impasse. Would the minister give us some indication at this time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Can my hon. friend indicate what he has in mind to move?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The amendment I have
drafted-and I will send a copy of it to the minister immediately, so that he can follow it-reads as follows:
That section 2 of Bill 24 be amended by adding as subsection (2A) thereof, the following after subsection (2) :
(2A) Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this section or elsewhere in this act contained shall confer or be construed as conferring any power (a) to make orders or regulations restricting, revoking or in any way abrogating the right of the individual to have recourse to the courts by way of appeal, prerogative writ or otherwise; (b) to make orders or regulations providing that an official acting in excess of his authority under any order or regulation made hereunder shall be immune from action in the courts by an individual thereby injured; (c) to make orders or regulations setting aside the judgment of any court; (d) to make orders or regulations having retroactive effect.
That would be the amendment that I propose to move. I will not move it at the moment if the minister is going to give us an indication of his reaction.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think that we could undertake to introduce that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister undertake to introduce anything along those lines?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I see that I have no alternative, Mr. Chairman, but to move that amendment. If I may I should like to speak briefly in support of the various clauses of that amendment.
What we are attempting to do is to have incorporated into the bill a provision which, in the first place, would make it impossible to make orders or regulations restricting the right of appeal or the right of recourse to the courts. I have referred already to the provisions which, in previous orders in council, have been passed under similar legislation,

and which have exactly that effect. An example would be clause 15 of the order in council establishing the wartime prices and trade board regulations, P.C. 8528, as amended by subsequent orders in council, which clearly provided that not only shall a member of the board who acts in excess of his authority not be responsible in the courts for any act or omission, but that no individual shall be able to start an action in the courts by way of any injunction or prerogative writ, to assert his rights or to protect his rights or to seek redress from such injuries. Up to the moment the minister has not dealt with the point which I have raised, and I do not think the Prime Minister has either. The point is that this protection of the rights of the individual would in no way prevent the government from exercising the power which it seeks under this bill, under extremely broad terms, to control our economy. Surely it is not necessary, in order to effectively control the economy of the country, to go so far sis to say that a controller who acts in excess of his authority, or commits some wrong by omitting to do something which he should have done, shall be immune from any action in the courts by the person aggrieved. That is all the first clause of this amendment seeks to do. What it seeks to do is to prevent the governor in council at any time in the future enacting a regulation which would take away from a person aggrieved by a wrongful act of some official appointed under such regulation his right of appeal to the courts.
The second clause is directed to the same object. Clause (b) reads that the governor in council shall not have the power:
To make orders or regulations providing that an official acting in excess of his authority under any order or regulation made hereunder shall be immune from action in the courts by an individual thereby injured.
Clause (c) covers the restriction on the right to make orders or regulations setting aside the judgment of any court. What I am seeking to preserve here, Mr. Chairman, is the rule of law. It is an established principle of the rule that individuals who have rights under present legislation in the present circumstances, and who seek to assert or preserve those rights and succeed before the courts which, along with parliament, are charged with the preservation of our rights, shall not have that right removed ex post facto by legislation which would seek to set aside a decision of the court. We have a pretty fair indication of the extent to which the government is prepared to go in the announcement made recently by the Minister of Justice, as a matter of fact, on February 16, in this house, namely, that if they lost the appeal which the government proposed to take to
Emergency Powers Act
the privy council in the Hallet and Carey case, they intend to introduce legislation which would amend-perhaps I had better use the minister's words. This is what he said, as reported at page 420 of Hansard:
Should this appeal not be successful, the government of Canada, being desirous of applying to the decontrol measures in oats and barley the same principles of preventing fortuitous profits as were applied to other commodities, gives notice that it will, in order to carry out the principle of preventing such fortuitous profits, introduce legislation in parliament confirming the settlement with all of the commercial traders in oats and barley, other than Mr. Nolan.
That is going fairly far along the road. It is not taking away the rights of this particular litigant. That is true. To be fair, I have to admit that. At the moment they will have to introduce legislation to accomplish the results the Minister of Justice has in mind. But now the government is asking us to give it power to do all equivalent acts by orders in council. The assertion which was made by the Minister of Justice here, that if they lose the Hallet case under the present law, they are going to introduce legislation to change the law with respect to rights established under that law, is a very dangerous principle to establish. It is because of the danger of the principle, which is so easy to extend and to abuse by order in council, that I have included in here subparagraph (c) which would simply provide that the governor in council shall not in the future be able to make orders or regulations setting aside the judgment of any court.
I do not imagine that the minister will say it is the intention of the governor in council to do such a thing. I cannot imagine any circumstances, in order to implement this control legislation, in which it would be necessary to do such a thing. This would amount to the insertion of a provision in the bill preserving the rule of law; and unless the minister is prepared to say that at the same time he feels it may be necessary to abrogate the rule of law, I do not see that he should have any objection to allowing 4this to be included in the bill.
Subparagraph (d) of this proposed section is very much to the same effect. It would prohibit the governor in council from making orders or regulations having retroactive effect, and in accordance with the same principle which I have mentioned, in order that the individuals, the ordinary men and women of this country, can know where they are with respect to the enactments which are put through here, and which subsequently will be made by order in council if this bill becomes law, it should not be possible for them to do an act, knowing they have reason

Emergency Powers Act to believe that the law is in one condition and gives them certain rights and privileges, and they act accordingly, and tomorrow find that by an order in council with retroactive effect what they did yesterday was made wrong.
I cannot imagine the minister will say that it would be necessary, in order to make this legislation effective, that such orders in council having retroactive effect would ever be passed. Unless the minister is prepared to say that, I cannot quite see that there would be any objection to the insertion of the safeguard in the legislation. It is for these reasons, again believing that it is essential that we should preserve the rule of law and that parliament under this bill, if it passes, having transferred to the governor in council the right to make laws over such a vast field of our national activities, at least the citizens whom parliament will no longer be in a position to protect should have the right to appeal to an impartial body, which will be their last protection in the courts of justice in this land. It is in pursuance of that principle that I am seeking to have this section inserted in the bill before the committee.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to subparagraph (b) of the amendment there could be a restriction if parliament feels that it is necessary to put it in. It would relate to something done and there might be recourse for any damages caused by the act of an official acting in excess of his authority; but the recourse to writs of prerogative would interfere with the proper administration of any controls that it might be sought to institute.
As to subparagraphs (c) and (d), why stop there? Why not have subparagraph (e) saying that nothing in this act will permit the governor in council to establish by orders in council divorce courts in the province of Quebec? Why not have another subparagraph (f) to make bigamy legitimate? You can imagine a great many things that the governor in council should not have the power to do under this legislation. There are many that I do not think he should have the power to do. I do not think it is necessary that they be all enumerated. There is a provision that all these orders will have to be brought to parliament and that parliament can, by resolution, annul them. I think that that is sufficient.
As to the other matter of whether there should be a reservation of right to sue after the fact if an official does something beyond his authority whereby someone is injured, that may be a proper thing to be tried by the courts. If it were established that he

had exceeded his authority and that someone had been injured it would not prevent the controls from having operated in the meantime. But the issuance of writs of prerogative when orders are made or when proceedings are taken to enforce those orders would seriously interfere with the expeditious administration of any controls that are set up.
Now if controls do not require to be administered expeditiously, then they are not required at all. If they are required and if they are the kind of measures that the government can bring to this house in the confident expectation that the house will approve them, then they are measures which will have to be administered expeditiously.
There is nothing in the act itself which would exclude these prerogative writs. With respect to something that the government felt should not be interfered with by prerogative writs, that would have to be expressed in the order that was brought to the house and the house could deal with it as it saw fit. I do not think there should be the exclusion of the power to make such a provision in connection with certain controls.


George Harris Hees: When speaking to the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce a few minutes ago implied that one of the things in the way of bringing in price controls is the apparent reluctance, as he put it, of the labour unions to agree to wage control coming in at the same time. A direct offer was made to the government in the brief submitted by the four major labour unions and recorded on page 511 of Hansard of February 20 as follows:
The labour movement recognizes that wages could go up fast enough and far enough to break a price ceiling, though it sees no immediate danger of anything of the sort. It believes that the proper way to deal with this question is a government-labour-management conference to work out methods of wage stabilization.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has taken up the offer of ^he four major labour unions to sit in and talk over this matter in a govemment-labour-management conference?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The government has not done it.


Major James William Coldwell: Would the government do so?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I think the offer made in the brief by the labour unions was made in good faith in an effort to co-operate with the government. If the government came to the conclusion that it should recommend controls in the hope that they would be effective, and assumed the responsibility of

putting forward a scheme which it hoped would be effective, it would do its best to get the sympathetic assistance of all the Canadian public, including the labour unions.
Mr. Cold well: That seems to clear up a very important point because throughout the country it is generally said that because the labour unions resist anything of this sort, price control could not be made effective. If the Prime Minister says that if and when controls come into effect this conference will be held and an attempt made to reach an understanding I think it clears up a very important point.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If and when controls are being considered in the hope that they will work successfully there will be an effort to enlist the assistance of all Canadians.


Major James William Coldwell: That is even better than
my comment implied.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just to refer to the arguments of the Prime Minister:	Of course it
is a useful legal argument to say that the principle of reductio ad absurdum should apply in respect of clauses (c) and (d) of this amendment, but I think the Prime Minister slipped into error by suggesting that we might add to this amendment restrictions against doing the things which the bill gives the governor in council the power to do in any case.
Although the bill does cover a pretty wide field I do not think it can be argued that it grants powers to make regulations or orders in council affecting divorce or other matters to which the Prime Minister referred, unless the Prime Minister is asserting that divorce is a matter having a bearing on the economy of the country. I have not heard that and I doubt if the right hon. gentleman would follow it up seriously.
The two restrictions which it is sought to impose upon subclauses Cc) and (d) of the amendment relate to powers which the governor in council would very definitely have if the bill before the committee were to pass. Not only would they be powers which the governor in council would have if the bill were to pass, they would be powers which the Minister of Justice has indicated he is prepared to exercise, even by legislation if necessary. He has given notice to this house and to the courts of this country, and incidentally to the privy council in so far as appeals started before the abolition act became effective, that if they do not give a judgment which is according to his opinion of the law, he will change the law so as to render the decisions of the courts of no effect.
Emergency Powers Act It is not a very great step from that to passing an order in council setting aside the decision of the courts in a certain case. If that principle is carried out it means the end of the rule of law in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friends say, "No,"
but do they mean to say that the proposition put forth by the Minister of Justice that if a decision of the courts is unpopular with the government in power they can pass an order in council rendering that decision of no effect does not end the rule of law? That is the logical outcome of the principle enunciated in this house by the Minister of Justice on February 16 with reference to an appeal now before the courts. The minister said that if the decision did not suit him he would introduce legislation taking away rights which others would have under the law as declared by the privy council, if it should confirm the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Minister of Justice has said that he will introduce legislation which would deny to those' who have made settlements the right to demand the same treatment and terms as Mr. Nolan will have been granted by the privy council if it confirms the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
If we have arrived at the positidn where the Minister of Justice is prepared to do this by legislation which would have to be brought before parliament-with all the force of the government behind it, it would still have to be brought before parliament and I hope there would be a chance of defeating such legislation which would end forever the principle of the rule of law-if he has the power to do that by order in council, then the only right we have is an illusory right of introducing a motion on the order paper which may or may not be reached. The motion might be introduced six months after the order in council had been passed if it should have been passed while parliament was not sitting. If that is the only safeguard we have, then the only way of taking care of the situation is by introducing into this legislation provisions which will make it impossible for such orders in council to be passed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the argument that the Prime Minister has put forward with regard to this matter constitutes in itself a substantial argument in favour of the inclusion of a provision of this kind. The very fact that it was necessary for the Prime Minister to go so far afield in order to suggest the kind of thing that should be guarded against indicates that an attempt is being made to create an impression of the retention of the rule of law, which in fact is not being

Emergency Powers Act preserved at all. The government constantly asserts its anxiety to maintain it, but it is anxious only to maintain the appearance of the rule of law while preserving in fact only a fiction of parliamentary responsibility.
The hon. member for Kamloops has pointed to one reason why there should be protection of this kind. The Minister of Justice has stated in the house that, were the decision of the privy council in the appeal in the Nolan case to be adverse to his opinion, he serves notice now to the privy council and everyone else that, as regards the legal rights established by that judgment, with respect to every other case but the Nolan case the rule of law will not apply.
I think hon. members should realize how important that declaration is. Dealing with this only as a legal question, and not in any way with the merits or otherwise of the particular trading transactions in question, it should be remembered that others besides Mr. Nolan, who delivered their grain under orders that were made, did so with a very clear and unmistakable reservation of their legal rights. They delivered the grain with formal protest and with the reservation of their legal rights. That being so, there are many people besides Mr. Nolan affected now by the judgment that was given. The statement by the Minister of Justice simply amounts to this, that because one man happened to go to the courts and so far has got a judgment we will let his judgment stand even if the privy council goes against us, but in every one of these other cases where their legal right is now so clearly established we serve notice that their legal right means nothing. That ends the rule of law.
No more dangerous doctrine has been asserted in this house at any time. If that doctrine is to stand, then we have notice of the intention of the minister. We were told it was the intention of the minister to introduce legislation that would make it possible to deal with these cases. The minister may have had in mind this very act. I am not sure that is not the real purpose of this bobtailed War Measures Act we have before us. After all, we have had no other reason given to us why the government could not wait and avail itself of laws now on the statute books. The government is not prepared to indicate to us any reason why this War Measures Act only slightly truncated is now before the house, but it would serve the purpose of the Minister of Justice in accordance with the declaration he made because this act would make it possible for him, without anybody knowing it was being done, to carry out his threat to deprive people of the legal rights clearly established by the

Nolan case under the reservation these people made at the time that their grain was delivered.
For that very reason it seems to me abundantly clear that an amendment of this kind is an amendment which should be contained in the act. The act is bad anyway, but the least that we can do, since the government is determined to use its majority to push it through, is to seek amendments that will meet the threat clearly made in this chamber by the government, and leave no doubt that this act is not intended for the very purpose which was left as a possibility by the Minister of Justice himself. I cannot help breaking into my remarks at this point to suggest that one of the dangerous evidences of what is taking place here is the chatter and the silly comments that are being made by some of the government supporters at a time when this bill is under consideration. Not one of them has the slightest idea of what the bill is about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Yet the moment any attempt
is made to bring this bill clearly within the principles of the rule of law these members who are here as representatives of people within their constituencies of all political parties object to that and indicate quite clearly that they do not want to know what the bill is about. They do not know because the government cannot tell us. The Prime Minister has made that quite clear. They do not know yet what they want it for. Perhaps the Minister of Justice wants it for the purpose covered by the amendment. I would also point out that the bill is not just a bill carrying through till next year. Let us keep this on a logical basis. Of course I have read the bill, and of course I am aware that the bill declares that it comes to an end next year; but if the emergency today demands this bill now, then the government could not in consistency tell us a year from now that they did not require the bill, unless the emergency itself is ended.
Members of the government have told us that the emergency is going to continue for a long time. Consequently if the arguments they make now are valid for the introduction of this bill and the emergency remains the same a year from now, they must in consistency tell us that it should continue unless they propose to introduce a more rigorous act, one which denies even more the rights of parliament with respect to the control of legislation. For that reason I think there is more involved than just an amendment which the Prime Minister suggests

would simply be a declaration of a few of many things that should not be dealt with under this act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The desire there seems
to be to discuss the Nolan case on occasions when it has no relevancy to the matters before the house is quite extraordinary. However, since there is that desire perhaps we might go into it a little further and see whether there should be this concern for the other dealers who would benefit not at the expense of the government but at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer to the extent of several million dollars. We think it was the intention of parliament that there should be none of these fortuitous profits allowed in the process of decontrol, and that was done in practically all cases of decontrol. We thought that the way to carry out the intention of parliament when there was a change made in the ceiling price of coarse grains was to vest the coarse grains in the government at the ceiling price that existed, and provide that the former owners might take them back at the new price when it was established.
We thought that was authorized, and we have the support of the law officers of the crown to that effect. The courts decided that, although the general language used in the extension acts was sufficient to include that power, because there had been in the original act an illustration given that was not repeated in the subsequent acts it should be assumed the intention of parliament was to exclude that power. They may be right but if they are right the government made a mistake in the method adopted to carry out the intention of parliament. It did not make any mistake as to what was the intention of parliament. It made a mistake, if that is correct, as to the method it adopted to carry out the intention of parliament. All that was said in the statement made by the Minister of Justice on behalf of the government was that if the courts finally held that the course adopted by the government to carry out the intention of parliament had been a mistaken course we would come to parliament and say, "The courts have said we made a mistake as to the procedure adopted. We did not make any mistake as to what parliament wanted done, and we ask you to confirm the settlements that were made with those who did not institute proceedings." I understand there were 348 concerned; that one brought proceedings; that 19 made protests, and that 328 accepted settlement without protest. What the government said was that it would come before parliament and recommend that it confirm those settlements as being settlements that it intended to have as the result of the decontrol policy.
Emergency Powers Act If that is destroying the rule of law, parliament will not pass the legislation. I can assure the hon. gentleman that there was no connection whatsoever between the preparation and language of this bill and the decision of the government announced to the House of Commons by the Minister of Justice. There will be no attempt at any time to bring about the result that we think parliament intended to be brought about otherwise than by coming to parliament and asking parliament whether or not it wishes to do it. That is the whole situation with respect to this matter. If, the courts having found that the procedure we adopted was not the right procedure, parliament says the people or Canada should lose the several million dollars represented by these fortuitous profits, that will be a responsibility parliament will assume, and those traders will get the fortuitous benefits arising from the fact that they were holding grain at the time the ceiling was varied. If, the courts having found that the method we adopted was wrong, parliament thinks those traders are entitled to that fortuitous profit they will retain it. But we felt that before bringing that matter to parliament we should have what was the final court when the litigation was instituted pass upon the conduct of the parties in that instance, and not ask parliament to adopt legislation of this kind, which is not normal legislation, until every other method of asserting that there had been a mistake was exhausted.	'


George Alexander Drew: Might I first of all point out that there was a very obvious reason for mentioning the Nolan case. That is, it was in relation to that case that the Minister of Justice asserted the proposition that no matter what were the legal rights of certain people, the government was prepared to introduce legislation to deal with that matter. The Prime Minister has now told us that this is not the act that was contemplated. We have that assurance, but for the first time; and this act-


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: But this is not the first time the hon. gentleman has referred to the Nolan case.


George Alexander Drew: No, and it will not be the last time. But since the Prime Minister has carried us off on another angle, I would point out that parliament did not pass the legislation which caused this action. This action was caused by an order in council of which parliament was wholly unaware. We are dealing now with a parliamentary principle relating to the rule of law. The Prime Minister expresses concern about this situation and indicates that a course which is unquestionably

Emergency Powers Act contrary to well-established legal and parliamentary principles should be adopted because in this case it might prevent certain fortuitous profits. May I point out, I am sure with fairness, that the government has not shown the same concern about fortuitous profits being made on a very much larger scale right today through the failure of the government to act in regard to some of the things that have been done by the government itself. After all, large fortuitous profits are being made today because of the shortage of materials created by certain government buying. So if there is this concern about fortuitous profits, may I suggest that this is an appropriate time to remind the government that we are asking them to give consideration to methods which will prevent those fortuitous profits and do away with that additional pressure on the inflationary spiral which is causing so much concern to the Canadian people at this time.
There is nothing in the proposal before the committee that should be objectionable to the government unless in fact the government does contemplate the possibility of doing something that would set aside judgments of the courts, or unless it has thought of making some retroactive provisions, or unless it has thought of doing some of these other things which would deny the ordinary rights of the individual. It does not seem to me that these amendments are drawn carelessly or that they can cause any difficulty unless in fact there is some possibility in the mind of the government that something of the kind actually may be done under this act.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 57.
Subsection 3 of section 2 agreed to.
On subsection 4 of section 2

Annulment of orders in council by Senate and House of Commons resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to raise a couple of matters on this paragraph, but perhaps first the Minister of Justice would be prepared to introduce the amendment dealing with the inclusion of regulations as well as orders in council within the annulment provisions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. The suggestion is that clause 2, subclause 4, should be amended by deleting the words "order in council" where they occur in the second and third lines thereof and substituting therefor "regulation as defined by the Regulations Act." I think that will cover the matter, since this is the definition of regulations under that act:
.	.	. a rule, order, regulation, by-law, or
proclamation (i) made, in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament, by the governor in council, the treasury board,
[Mr. Drew.}
a minister of the crown, or a board, commission, corporation or other body or person that is an agent or servant of His Majesty in right of Canada,
I believe that is sufficiently inclusive to cover all the regulations the member for Eglinton mentioned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am satisfied that that covers the point I raised. I shall be happy to see that amendment carried.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would then move that:
The words "order in council" be deleted and the word "regulation" as defined in the Regulations Act be substituted therefor.
Subsection 4 would then read:
If the Senate and House of Commons within a period of forty days, beginning with the day on which any regulation as defined under the Regulations Act, made under this act is laid before parliament in accordance with the Regulations Act . . .
And so on for the rest of the section.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since that discussion is over, I should like to have another word with the Prime Minister, and perhaps he would favour us with a word about the procedure if parliament seeks to annul one of these orders. I have already spoken on this question and the Prime Minister knows my views. I appreciate his statement that the government did consider trying to find some way-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I believe the amendment should be disposed of before we continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the amendment had been carried.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister indicated that some consideration had been given by the government concerning the possibility of writing into the statute a provision so as to make it clear that any member of the house or Senate could propose such a motion for annulling an order passed under this act. Now, assurance was given by the Prime Minister earlier today that the government would facilitate any motion, if one were made. I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to tell us how he pictures such a course would be pursued, if it should happen. I realize it is hypothetical, and I realize the government is going to mind its p's and q's, and try not to bring in anything which parliament would want to annul. I do believe it would be helpful if he would tell us how he thinks this would work in actual practice if an instance should arise.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: If there were a notice or a motion on the order paper it would be proper to suggest, at the end of the day preceding the expiry of the forty-eight hours, that the house should consider immediately after routine proceedings, the motion on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No matter where that motion might be on the order paper?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: No matter where it might be on the order paper, that it would be convenient to consider that after the routine proceedings on the day on which it would mature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister would favour that course being followed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would favour that course, and I would ask those over whom I had any influence to agree to that course being followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the Prime Minister does not mind our appearing to try to get an undertaking out of him on this point. But it is very important, and a definite undertaking would be appreciated.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there were not unanimous consent to that procedure being followed, if there were objections to that procedure, I would give an undertaking to put a notice on the order paper as a government notice that such a resolution be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure we all appreciate the statement the Prime Minister has just made. May I turn now to two other matters in connection with subsection 4. The first has to do with the length of time which may elapse before one of these orders or regulations comes to the notice of parliament. The forty-day period referred to in the subsection has to do with the period within which, if there were an order or regulation tabled in the house, a member may seek by way of notice of motion to annul it. But what about the period of time which may elapse before the regulation or order in council is tabled in the house or comes to the notice of the house?
All this subsection contemplates is that the procedure provided for by the Regulations Act should be followed in every case. The procedure under that act, which was adopted last year and which is chapter 50 of the statutes of 1950, is that within thirty days after an order in council or regulation is passed it must be gazetted in the Canada Gazette. Then, within another fifteen days after being there gazetted, it must be tabled in the house by the government. If the full time provided
Emergency Powers Act for is used, forty-five days may elapse after the order in council is passed before it is tabled in the house. It is only when it is tabled in the house that the annulment proceedings contemplated by subsection 4 can be instituted.
I appreciate that it may not always be possible to table orders in council the day they are made. I do not wish to be unreasonable about this, but I do think that a period of forty-five days being allowed to elapse is grossly excessive when one considers the extraordinary nature of the legislation, and the importance and far-reaching effect of many of the orders in council and regulations that may be adopted under the terms of such legislation. It seems to me that with respect to extraordinary measures of this kind, there is no occasion for passing through the stow and cumbersome proceedings contemplated by the Regulations Act with respect to regulations in ordinary cases. That procedure may be satisfactory with respect to measures that are not passed under extraordinary powers such as are proposed to be conferred by this bill on the governor in council. I believe we must have some procedure that will enable parliament to have immediate or nearly immediate knowledge of the contents of such orders in council and, if not satisfied with them, to be able to institute annulment proceedings as contemplated in this subsection.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Kamloops:
That clause 4 of section 2 of Bill 24 be amended by striking out the words "in accordance with the Regulations Act" in lines 39 and 40 and by renumbering the said clause (5):
And that section 2 be further amended by inserting between clauses 3 and 5 the following clause:
"(4) Every order in council made under or pursuant to authority conferred under this act shall be laid before parliament within five days after it is made or, if parliament is not then in session, within five days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof."
May I just add this further explanation, Mr. Chairman. If these extraordinary orders in council and regulations are tabled in the house, it is not necessary that they should first be required to appear in the Canada Gazette. That can be done in due course later on, in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations Act. But for extraordinary measures of this kind there should be provision for almost immediate tabling in the house, so that parliament will promptly have knowledge of their contents.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand what the
hon. member wants is this: it would not apply to the regulations. He wants the orders in council made under the act, if parliament is in session, to be laid on the table within

Emergency Powers Act five days. I do not think there can be any objection to doing that. But I do not think that he should strike out the words "in accordance with the Regulations Act" because that phrase applies also to the regulations. This should be something additional to what is required in the Regulations Act and not a substitution; because the phrase "in accordance with the Regulations Act" covers more than what would be covered by this subsection 4. There is no objection to requiring the orders in council to be tabled here even before they go through the procedure set up under the Regulations Act. There should be no objection to putting a provision in section 4 as it is, something that would not prevent the moving of the resolution as soon as the order in council is tabled, whether the tabling had been done in accordance with section 4 or in accordance with the Regulations Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The suggestion of the Prime Minister is entirely satisfactory, so far as I am concerned. The section might be allowed to stand until this is put in satisfactory form. I think we are in agreement.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the section might stand. There is no objection to having the two requirements. With respect to the regulations, I think the Regulations Act is the thing that should govern; because these regulations or orders may be made by different authorities, and we want to have them come to the privy council office and be recorded there, and to have them published in the Canada Gazette.
As to the things that we do by orders in council, which would be the foundation of the regulations, there is no objection to tabling the orders in council at once.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the Prime Minister. We are in thorough agreement as to the object. It is just a question of reducing the matter to satisfactory phraseology. I suggest that the section might stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will see that the drafting is taken in hand right away.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the subsection stand?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I pass on to the other matter I should like to raise?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps if we were merely to add "in accordance with subsection 4 or with the Regulations Act" it would meet the situation. Whatever brings them to the table starts the delay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should not some thought
be given to the problem that arises as to the differing lengths of time before parliament can deal with them, as between orders in eouncil and regulations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It would be forty days
from the time they were laid on the table, whether the laying on the table was in accordance with subsection 4 or in accordance with the Regulations Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize that fact. But in the one case, that of orders in council, they reach the table within five days after they are passed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But in the case of regulations, other than orders in council, it would be longer than that before they would reach the table.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not at the moment proposing any solution to the problem nor am I indicating that it is a serious one. I just suggest that the draftsmen might look at it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that matter of draftsmanship is in hand may I, in order to save time, go on to the other matter I should like to raise with regard to this subsection 4?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: In connection with the
same subsection 4?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. You will notice that in the concluding lines of subsection 4, where annulment is brought about by resolution of the two houses of parliament, it is provided
that the order in council or regulation__
-shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to its previous operations or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or any offence committed or any penalty or forfeiture or punishment incurred.
It seems to me that these concluding provisions are extremely drastic. Let us assume that an order in council has been passed which has had the effect of laying down law in that form and attaching penalties by way of imprisonment and fine for a breach. Then let us assume that some individual has committed a breach, has been prosecuted, fined and imprisoned. Then suppose that parliament, on receiving notice-and this no doubt would all be in a short space of time-of the order in council when tabled in the house, takes the annulment procedure contemplated by subsection 4 and decides that it cannot approve the order in council in that form, annuls it, and expresses, let us say, strong disapproval of it. Under this provision, the unfortunate transgressor who has committed a breach of the order in council which has since been annulled is still bound by the sentence imposed upon him. That sentence stands; the imprisonment continues; the fine is imposed; notwithstanding that parliament has in the meantime annulled the order in council.

It seems to me that that is an indefensible situation. I can see that, in certain situations, in order to give sufficient protection to those who are charged with the enforcement of an order in council which is law under this section until it is annulled, there is required some provision that will give clear legal effect to what they have done, in good faith, while the order in council was in effect. But that is no warrant whatever or justification for going on to provide that the annulment shall be without prejudice to the offence, the penalty, the forfeiture or the punishment incurred. It seems to me that if parliament, acting in the exercise of its sovereign rights, decides that it will annul the order in council, then whatever has been done by way of the imposition of penalty, fine or imprisonment should end with the annulment of the main provisions of the order in council. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops:
That clause 4 of section 2 of Bill No. 24 be amended by striking out the words "or any offence committed or any penalty or forfeiture or punishment incurred" in lines 45, 46 and 47.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: This amendment should not be disposed of until the other amendment has been dealt with. Therefore it will stand.
Subsection 4 of section 2 stands.
On section 3-Penalties.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one matter in regard to section 3 that I should like to raise. Section 3 is unlike the provision of section 4 of the War Measures Act in this respect, that while it maintains the same ceiling on the period of imprisonment that may be imposed, namely, five years, it does not put any ceiling whatever on the fine which may be imposed. Section 4 of the War Measures Act, while in similar terms, does place a ceiling on the fine which may be imposed, namely, $5,000. As I indicated to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice in conversation at the dinner adjournment, it seems to me that $5,000 ceiling on the fine in the War Measures Act should be revised upwards. It does not meet the needs of the situation today. Although in the case of a drastic offence the penalty that should be imposed should be imprisonment, not simply a fine, there is the problem of corporations, which may be offenders, for whose offence imprisonment is not a suitable penalty; and in the case of a drastic offence a fine of $5,000 might be quite inadequate. However, while I appreciate the point the Prime Minister made on that occasion, that the order in council or regulation passed under the authority of section 3 of this bill would require to stipulate the maximum penalty that may be imposed, maximum
Emergency Powers Act both as to fine and as to imprisonment, nevertheless it seems to me that in this foundation provision, namely, section 3, subsection 1, from which authority will be derived to write such provisions into orders in council and regulations passed under the authority of this legislation, there should likewise be some clear definition of the ceiling on the amount of fine that may be imposed.
There is a ceiling here on the term of imprisonment. That is a proper limitation. It seems to me there should also be some ceiling in the case of the fine, so that we might carry out our function of seeing that proper limitations are written into extraordinary legislation of this kind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The difficulty here is that
quite wide powers are being taken by the governor in council to deal with situations that we may not possibly be able to foresee at this time in all their outlines to create controls and in connection with them to create offences. The commission of some of such offences may have serious consequences for the nation, and it would seem that it would be wiser for us at the present time to leave discretion to the governor in council as to what the limitation should be on the matter of a fine, especially having regard to the fact that quite extensive provisions have been made for review of these orders in council by parliament, and most of the suggestions of my hon. friends to facilitate that review have also been adopted.
These orders in council will come here with whatever penalties they do provide, and then we can judge whether the penalties are fair in relation to the offences to which they apply.


George Alexander Drew: Before section 3 carries perhaps it may be well to have an explanation of the change in subsection 2, because section 3, subsection 2, is in fact simply a rewriting of section 8 of the War Measures Act. For the benefit of hon. members perhaps the Minister of Justice might explain why certain of the authority in section 8 of the War Measures Act is omitted. I should imagine there is some particular reason.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is right. I do not
know whether my hon. friend was in the chamber when that was explained this afternoon, but the reason for it is this. At the time the War Measures Act was in force the Interpretation Act, a separate act entirely, provided that rights which had vested, pursuant to a statute, would remain in effect after the statute had been repealed; but it was found with regard to a number of these statutes of the type that we are discussing here that they would not necessarily be

Emergency Powers Act repealed, but might merely lapse or expire by the efflux of time, and would not therefore fall within the provision of the Interpretation Act relating to statutes which had been repealed.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but he has misapprehended what I was referring to. I referred to subsection 2 of section 3 which starts with the words:
Any goods, wares or merchandise dealt with contrary to any order or regulation made under this act . . .
I was pointing out that this is really a rewriting of section 8 of the War Measures Act, but that a portion at the beginning of that section had been omitted. That portion referred to any ship or vessel used or moved. There must be some reason why section 8 of the War Measures Act has been carried in as section 3, subsection 2, but with these deletions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I will have to
check on that before I can answer my hon. friend's question.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall
continue with this bill. Then we shall proceed with Bill No. 77, respecting the department of defence production; then Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935; two bills in the name of the Minister of Transport, namely, Nos. 6 and 76, and Bill No. 80.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 2, 1951